Talk:William Lynch Speech

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added tag, because of conflict in editions. D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a famous text, whether it is from the 18th century or not. Supposedly, Louis Farrakhan mentioned this in a speech (needs a citation in the article) and I have heard Talib Kweli and other rappers mention it. It is well known even if it is a hoax -- Bigfoot (the jury is out) has a wikipedia entry. There is no need for bickering. We need to note the criticisms of its veracity; I'm sure some scholars have seen this as well. 71.235.19.106 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A key problem is the absence of any provenance for this text. As things stand, it does not appear to be a genuine early 18th century text, for reasons mentioned in the article. fledgist 15:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm unclear as to why the the article is tagged with the {{POV}} template. Does the conflict in editions refer to the speech itself or to this article? If there are discrepancies between different versions of the speech, then that should be mentioned in the article, but it isn't really the article's problem. (Though not mentioning the discrepancies might be POV; perhaps this is what you meant?) Second, we really should cite this article's source for the Willie Lynch speech itself (and I have tagged the relevant section). This becomes more important if, indeed, there are different versions of the speech out there. Also, some sources (such as the Final Call website) claim copyright on the speech's text. Finally, Louis Farrakhan cites the speech in his open letter about the Millions More Movement and I have noted this in the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Frog, I found a source (which has been there since the article in "external links", but never cited). I could find no other version than the one cited. Thanks. Molotov (talk)
16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

1 Copyvio
2 Fine
3 Trying
4 Etymology of lynching
5 Another discrepancy
6 This is ridiculous
7 Have any of you considered the fact that Frederick Douglass Discusses William Willie Lynch?
8 Wikisource

[edit] Copyvio

This is presented as the complete work. The complete work not only is unneeded, it is one of the factors that raises the copyvio hazard. This work must be assumed under copyright protection, since its internal content makes an 18th-century origin implausible, and being fraudulently presented (or being written with ironic intent) does not invalidate copyright. It must be either paraphrased or reduced to short excerpts (and short quotes, where either the author's purported state of mind or the forger's anachronisms seem demonstrated, are especially appropriate).
--Jerzy•t 22:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand the speech itself is not copyrighted, only added material related to it were copyrighted on the website I cited. I also had taken off the cleanup tag, the style is find, it is the dispute that is bad. Molotov (talk)
22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just won't edit this anymore. I wanted it to be a Featured article but noooooooooooooooo, I think I am going to get a third party in on this one. Molotov (talk)
22:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[The following was written in an edit overlapping with the above 'graph, & added via a careful ed-conf resolution, before reading VM's.]

I'm not surprised you fine the style find [sic], since you've made so many edits. If others find it fine, they'll say so & take the tag off.

Copyright does not depend on assertion of the copyright; since the site you found it on does not claim a relationship with the author, it would be surprising if they asserted the copyright. (The only effect of failing to put a copyright notice on something is that you don't automatically get your lawyer paid by the violator, when you win your suit against them.)
--Jerzy•t 22:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually most of the article had been changed since I began it back in May, so much of my writing is altered. And the speech is not copyrighted. Molotov (talk)
23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of another web site with the exact same speech. IT is not copyrighted. I see nothing wrong with whatever style the thing is written in, including mine, yours, Fledgist's or anybody else. This article has survived several months without debate. Molotov (talk)
23:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also note that there is not a copyright on it. Molotov (talk)
23:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Three things: First, as Jerzy mentions, copyright is automatic (at least in the U.S.A.) for books, websites, speeches, paintings, even works in progress. Adding a copyright notice makes things easier to prove/disprove in a court of law. If a person does not include a copyright notice, as with the website you've mentioned, it is still under copyright if it doesn't specify otherwise (though the writer might not be aware of that, and may not do anything about a violation). Secondly, the website might be guilty of plagiarism. Where did that person find that copy of the speech? He must have found it somewhere, right? Did he get permission to use it? etc., etc. (So far, the website could be both copyrighted and guilty of plagiarism - weird, huh?) Third, the speech is copyrightable, particularly if it is indeed a twentieth-century fabrication. Although if it was created as a hoax, the original writer might have a hard time proving copyright (it would be like fabricating an urban legend email, and then trying to sue someone way down the line of recipients for plagiarism). The Final Call website does assert copyright, but given the unknown origins of the speech, I am not sure they can really make such a claim (unless it is their own version of the speech). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I HATE Wikipedia. Molotov (talk)
01:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Gettysburg Address - it has no problems with copyvio, it is 'newer' that this speech, I fail to see any plausible claim of copyvio for a work, or a deception of a work, in the public domain for over 200 years . MSU use the word 'attributed', the article overly echos that. I can't foresee any problems in this area. Alf ^melmac 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Two things regarding the Gettysburg Address: It is verifiably old enough to now be in the public domain, but aside from that it should be public domain anyway, because it is the work of an employee of the U.S. government. I have not seen any documentation proving that the Lynch speech truly dates from 1712, but if it did, then you're right, it would be old enough to be in the public domain. But again, if the speech is a 20th century fabrication, then a copyright does apply (however unlikely that someone could actually enforce it). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

ALL assertions to the speech DATE FROM 1712, there isn't ANY PROOF OF IT BEING A 20TH CENTURY FABRICATION - WHY SHOULD THIS BE SO DIFFICULT. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS! V M
00:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC) : )

Well, now I'm simply confused, because the first sentence in the article says it "is a legendary speech, famous for its spurious origins," then goes on to explain the anachronisms in the letter, etc. But probably a moot point, because I really, sincerely doubt that we will actually run into problems regarding a possible copyright violation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fine

You all (Gyrofrog and Jerzy) can do what ever. Once again I have been proven wrong by "own ignorances" Maybe my presence would be better somewhere else. I have been contributing - and created - this article, and I was only trying to do best job as possible. But I guess that just doesn't cut it although the speech has been on here since May. Molotov (talk)
03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Should the article still have the cleanup tag though? Molotov (talk)
03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

First: I'll let Jerzy speak for him or herself, but from what you've written, it seems as though you're taking my comments personally. They most certainly are not intended to upset you; rather, the whole point of my placing them here is to further the collaborative effort (this is a wiki, after all; you have to expect people to come along and want to modify something at some point). Second: I'm sure there are hundreds of articles needing attention, cleanup, copyright resolution, etc. that have been around a lot longer than this one (see Category:Pages needing attention, for example). Third: I don't think the cleanup tag hurts, though I have just taken a stab at a couple of little fixes myself. I still don't see the need for the {{POV}} tag. What is the dispute? Does the article leans too much toward the "fake speech" or "real speech" POV? No one has even mentioned that here, and the first comment which mentions POV isn't very clear about what the problem is (though now I just notice this was your old user name). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with other people editting - I have a problem when Jerzy tells me I am some "abyss of misinformation," insults my intelligence - and writing skills - and to the bottom line I am always wrong here. Molotov (talk)
04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trying

To work, so I did whatever Jerzy was talking about even though he dislikes me for some reason. V. Molotov (talk)
20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of lynching

According to another Wikipedia article, the word "lynch" is named after Charles Lynch. One of the websites cited in this article also attributes this to Charles Lynch. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, other sources mention William Lynch, but place his date of birth 30 years after the speech was given (I had cited one reference for this the other day but forgot to mention it here). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another discrepancy

I'm not sure how or whether to work this into the article, but it's strange that the speaker would make note of what year it was, not to mention the elaborate way in which he does so (e.g. "year of our Lord"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is ridiculous

This speech is not even written in 18th century English. Its grammar and vocabulary are thoroughly modern, nor does it represent 18th C ideas about race. There is no way this is genuine. Paul B 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul's the only one to say this in plain view, but it does need emphasizing. Please see h-afro-am Discussion Log --JohnHarris 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have any of you considered the fact that Frederick Douglass Discusses William Willie Lynch?

FREDERICK DOUGLAS SPEAKS ON WILLIE LYNCH (Date Unknown)

To the slave-owners of Virginia

"The following treatise, to the knowledgeable, will be the missing link that has been sought to explain how we were put into the condition that we find ourselves in today. It confirms the fact that the slaveholder tried to leave nothing to chance when it came to his property; his slaves. It demonstrates, how out of necessity, the slave holder had to derive a system for perpetuating his cash crop, the slave, while at the same time insulating himself from retribution by his unique property.

A careful analysis of the following "handbook", will hopefully change the ignorant among our people who say "Why study slavery?" Those narrow minded people will be shown that the condition of our people is due to a scientific and psychological blue print for the perpetuation of the mental condition that allowed slavery to flourish. the slaveholder was keenly aware of the breeding principles of his livestock and the following treatise demonstrated that he thoroughly used those principles on his human live stock as well, the African Slave, and added a debilitating psychological component as well.

It was the interest and business of slaveholders to study human nature, and the slave nature in particular, with a view to practical results, and many of them attained astonishing proficiency in this direction. They had to deal not with earth, wood and stone, but with men and by every regard they had for their own safety and prosperity they needed to know the material on which they were to work.

Conscious of the injustice and wrong they were every hour perpetrating and knowing what they themselves would do, were they the victims of such wrongs, they were constantly looking for the first signs of the dreaded retribution. They watched, therefore, with skilled and practiced eyes, and learned to read, with great accuracy, the state of mind and heart of the slave, through his stable face. Unusual sobriety, apparent abstraction, sullenness, and indifference, indeed any mood out of the common way afforded ground for suspicion and inquiry. "Let's Make a Slave" is a study of the scientific process of man breaking and slave making. It describes the rationale and results of the Anglo Saxon's ideas and methods of insuring the master/slave relationship."

The End —the preceding comment is by Marketex - 21:13, 9 July 2006: Please sign your posts!

This is unsourced, undated, and not in 19th century English. It may, however, be evidence that the hoax is spawning off more hoaxes. Septentrionalis 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)