Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9/4/2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Archive

Archive
Archives
/Archive


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)