Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on And you are lynching Negroes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fandom.ru/about_fan/sf_16.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

The archiving is still hyperactive.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

GA

Talk Pages are not Forums for General Discussion Exemplo347 (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, is this article really being nominated as a GA? It seems strange that there would be a push to pull this old chestnut out of the fire, just when the work by Michelle Alexander (New Jim Crow) and the Prison Riots (Free Alabama Movement) over prison labor and Black Lives Matter had gained some attention in the US after Baltimore and Ferguson. Is there not a bit of "today" politics motivating this nomination, Sagecandor? Also, how long do we have to review the page and where do you go to see the reviews? I'm very concerned about this choosing of select "keywords" like "fake news" and "and are you lynching Negroes" as particularly crucial semantemes. It's surely true that RT did better interviews during the prison strike than most US mainstream media... There is no doubt you've done some serious work here Sage. I guess the question is "Why?" —SashiRolls (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the compliments about my article expansion work. The review will come in due time. It should NOT be done by an involved party. Rather, it should be done instead by a GA Reviewer who is previously uninvolved on the subject. Preferably someone who also wrote another GA candidate or GA article on a similar topic. Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC) If you're serious about passing a GA review, you might want to consider adding some background (serfdom abolished in Russia during the US Civil War), the 1939 release of "Strange Fruit", modern day developments in "selective coverage" (or non-coverage) such as those I mentioned above. As it is the article is a bit repetitive, there seems to be a tendency to derive the same sorts of statements from a lot of different sources. Oh, and as I said on my talk page, the "See Also" section seems to me far too snarky to be taken seriously on a non-essay page. But it appears the backlog for GA nominations is about 6 months... you've got time to fix it up yet where it needs it. SashiRolls (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC) After these above series of comments, trimmed some from the See also section. [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Personally I wouldn't worry too much about random comments like this while you're waiting for a GA review. The only person's comments you need to take into consideration will be the reviewer. You can pretty much ignore the rest if you're happy enough with the article to nominate it for GA. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Exemplo347, for your reassuring comments. Sagecandor (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @Exemplo347: This discussion is clearly relevant to this article, so I don't understand your reason for closing it. Jarble (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC) I've closed it because "Is this article really being nominated for a GA?" (a question I've never seen asked before) from an editor who is following Sagecandor around being picky about everything he does and is currently at WP:AE because of it, isn't especially relevant. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC) @Exemplo347: This is inappropriate. As stated at AE, I came here because of an open Request for Comment (here). Please strike your personal attack. SashiRolls (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've requested page protection to stop this constant warring. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it was denied for now. --evrik ^(talk) 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Pot call kettle black. The issue was discussed in talk page multiple times and may be found in talk archives. The deleted text was contested by multiple editors. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I consider this to be the version that should be up there. It's not that different from the one two years ago. Any change you make from this one are the unproductive ones. --evrik ^(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Evrik. The slow edit-warring appears to go back several months. And this edit [2] appears to have both: removed 16 sources from the article and also tagged the top of the page at same time with {{notability}} and {{original research}}. To do both of those actions at the same time suggests not wanting the topic to exist. The topic clearly is notable. The subject clearly does exist. See for example:

1. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and also
2. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).

Lots of good sources that show the topic is definitely notable. Sagecandor (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please list the specific sources which you think treat the subject significantly, per WP:GNG. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you start a new section and we'll tackle each paragraph on its own. --evrik ^(talk) 16:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Sagecandor is not talking about paragraphs. His remark and my reply are about possible sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the complaints here. I spot checked several sources for both reliable sources and verifiability to verify if they are directly related to this article. They all use the exact verbatim phrase, "And you are lynching Negroes". So it would seem they are relevant for inclusion in this article on this notable topic. Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between using a phrase and have a significant discussion of the phrase; please see WP:GNG. Please list some of the sources you checked, so that I could explain this on a specific example. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can give us an example of one specific source currently in the article you want to remove, and maybe tell us specifically why? Sagecandor (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have requested that the page protection continue past tomorrow, and received an answer --evrik ^(talk) 15:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Please restore the OR hatnote:

{{original research|date=November 2016}}

accidentally removed during the revert war. The OR discussion is actually in full swing and more eyeballs would be beneficial. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, please instead suggest individual specific sources to remove or text to edit to be more in line with those sources. Sagecandor (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, you have no say here. The tags cannot be removed until the issue is resolved. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I have some say, I can express my opinion on the talk page as an editor. Sagecandor (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
      • In my limited understanding of English "you have no say" means "your opinion does not count". Of course you can say what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, I am certainly glad we are both able to express our views in this space without fear of persecution by the government for doing so ! :) Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The information about Soviet art and literature in the History section is obviously original research. The sources do not link the art and literature to this catchphrase. The Scottsboro Boys case was a case of wrongful conviction, which is why the slogan is "Free the prisoners". It only has a tangential relationship to the topic. The same is true for the information about Ferguson. The sources do not connect the news story back to the catchphrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Done per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is no consensus on whether there is OR. --evrik ^(talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the OR tag and revert the page to where it was when it was protected. --evrik ^(talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

How is the following not original research?

Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch."[8]

The footnote is to the image.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: from a quick look at the discussion above, it seems there is consensus that some of the article is problematic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Under And you are lynching Negroes#Variants

Similar phrases are used in the languages of Eastern Europe, in different variants.

• Czech: A vy zase bijete černochy! ("And, in turn, you beat up blacks!")
• Hungarian: Amerikában (pedig) verik a négereket ("And in America, they beat up Negroes")
• Polish: A u was Murzynów biją! ("And at your place, they beat up Negroes!")
• Romanian: Da, dar voi linșați negrii! ("Yes, but you are lynching Negroes!")

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talk • contribs)

References

• Support. Translations are useful. In the future, please indicate clearly what you wand to be added or deleted, for ease of verification. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving is still hyperactive

Everything about this article is problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are five paragraphs in this article. Why don't we look at them, one by one. --evrik ^(talk) 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My comment was about the archiving. Why change the heading and change the meaning of what I said???--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion on archiving ws ... archived. I thought your comment was held over and out of context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern day argument

Russia's state-run television, such as Russia-24, frequently cites modern-day racism in the United States, killings of black Americans by police and resulting riots as examples of profound injustice and inequality in the Western society, as opposed to the society in Russia.

References

Removed sources New Republic and Washington Post as both do not mention title of article or any variants of the phrase: [3] and [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• They both mention race relations and Russia. --evrik ^(talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: Is it okay to use sources in this article that do not mention the title of the article, "And you are lynching Negroes", or any of the phrase's variants, or does that violate WP:SYNTH ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. --evrik ^(talk) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. -- Do those 2 sources that were removed, discuss the title of this article? Do those sources themselves, not us Wikipedia editors but those sources, relate the title of this article back to how we then wish to use those sources in this article? How can they, when they don't even mention the title of this article? Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The article says in the first line (I paraphrase), "And you are lynching Negroes" [is an] anecdotal counter-argument catchphrases, which epitomize the tu quoque arguments used by the Soviet Union in response to allegations that it had violated human rights. The sentences you removed in the "Modern day argument" section draw a direct line from then to today. That's not synthesis, that is explanation and context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The sources do not draw that line. You, a Wikipedia editor, are drawing that line, yourself, by adding those sources. Those sources do not mention the phrase "And you are lynching Negroes", or any variant. This is textbook violation of WP:No original research and WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The saying is a defense of the Soviet Union (Russia) by highlighting the racism of the US. The section in question says the same thing goes on today. That is not synthesis. It's also not OR, as that's what the articles say themselves. --evrik ^(talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

These are all your personal judgments. The 2 sources removed do not draw those conclusions. You do. How can they draw a line from the phrase, "And you are lynching Negroes", to the present, when they don't even mention the phrase at all ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but as you have asked for a chance to improve the article. I will wait to withhold judgement. --evrik ^(talk) 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is a synthesis. I think it is a very large leap to go from Soviet propaganda to the current Russian media. Russia is no longer promoting itself as the model of an alternative society, nor broadcasting a radical critique of capitalist societies and America in particular. We would need strong evidence that there is a continuation in this propaganda, and secondly this would have to be tied back to the catchphrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It does look like synthesis. It is an unsourced expansion of the subject from the period of the original imagery and phrase's usage into an era where both the usage of exact phrase and images, and the actual reality of "negroes being lynched", no longer exist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Need sort of connection made by secondary sources that mention the phrase. Sagecandor (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely synthesis to connect it to this specific phrase, which is what this article is ostensibly about. This could be used in a hypothetical "Modern Russian criticism" section of a Soviet criticism of racism in the United States, since the two are successor states, but it is synthesis and OR in an article about the phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Rampages.us

• Sheehan, Thomas. "tu quoque". Psuedoscience. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

Removed this source, and replaced it with a better one.

Rampages.us appears to be a user-edited resource and therefore nice to consult, but fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact, this source is a copycat of several older wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

1932 Dmitri Moor

Shortly there after, in 1932, Dmitri Moor produced "Freedom to the prisoners of Scottsboro!" following the attempted lynching of the Scottsboro Boys of Alabama.

References

---

Removed the 1932 Dmitri Moor material for same reason, at edit: [5].

All the citations are links to picture prints, not actual text discussion of the term, and thus violation of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The removed text was also cherry-picking sources, portraying the Scottsboro Boys case as an attempted lynching. While there was an attempted lynching early in the piece, the case was about the wrongful conviction of the "boys" and their imprisonment. Hence Moor's slogan, "Freedom to the prisoners..." Furthermore, the Communist Party of the USA was heavily involved in the case. It was a Communist cause. Moor was supporting that cause, rather than attempting to distract Soviet citizens from Soviet social problems. The connection being made in the text is not obvious.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed commentary on the joke about car dealer

the explanations of the joke is pure original research. The sources cited are about logical fallacy and do not discuss the joke at all. I can give 4 more reasons why the joke is funny, and with footnotes with the same relevance (i.e., tangential relevance) to the joke itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If it does not have the phrase in the article, original research. Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Glavin

The article now cites two articles (or rather flippant rants) by Glavin, which are virtually identical, to support the claim: "By the 1940s the phrase was used by Soviets to avert critical arguments against Joseph Stalin and the malnourished status of citizens living in Ukraine." Glavin has obviously done little research, as shown by his claim that the USSR collapsed in 1989. In the 1940s Stalin was a US ally. Ukraine's famine was in the 1930s. In the 1940s Ukraine was under German occupation. Glavin just made that up.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed, at [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference to The Diplomat

This sentence should not be removed, because the author is not an expert neither in history nor folklore. In fact, his text is a piece of ignorance: "When the Scottsboro boys were sentenced to death in 1931...<...> Soon Americans who criticized the Soviet Union for its human rights violations were answered with the famous tu quoque argument:<...> " In fact the earliest attested use of the phrase in this way is 1962. And there are strong indications that this author, along with other random bloggers, picked his dubious wisdom from wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean should be removed? Yes, I agree that passage is clearly copied from this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, The Diplomat. I see no evidence it was copied from Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it's quite possible instead that The Diplomat from 2015 used The Economist from 2008 as a reference. (“Over there they lynch Negroes”)—a phrase that, by the time of the Soviet collapse, had become a synecdoche for Soviet propaganda as a whole. Sagecandor (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The passage that Staszek quoted is clearly sourced from this article. It's too much of a coincidence. Based on a Google search, no other sources connect "Scottsboro", "Dmitry [or Dmitri] Moor", "tu quoque", and "lynching negroes" (except obvious mirror sites). As I have argued elsewhere, connecting these things is original research unique to this article. In fact, based on a Google search, Moor's Scottsboro poster appears to be very obscure, except for its elevation in this article. And, as Staszek has pointed out, the author has misread this article, assuming that the catchphrase originated in the 1930s. Also, he seems to think that "And you are lynching Negroes" is actual Soviet propaganda, whereas it is a parody of Soviet propaganda. The author has not done his own research, but has produced a garbed version of this article — a distorted mirror. The Diplomat is generally a reliable source. But, in this case, like many media outlets it has used Wikipedia as a source. And that's fine, if Wikipedia's right. In this case, the content is clearly original research by some Wikipedian. In any case, we can't use circular sourcing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree with your analysis. My research has shown it to be both a form of Soviet propaganda, which then later evolved into a joke such that the propaganda became a cliche. Sagecandor (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You haven't responded to what I said. We can't use circular sourcing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the source and I don't think it's circular. Sagecandor (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it does not appear to be the same text, and I read the source article which goes into a bit more depth and discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That passage (two sentences) is clearly sourced from this article. If you deny that, you'll deny anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please focus on content discussion and not individual contributors, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

1929 postcard

Removed source and mention of 1929 postcard as both WP:PRIMARY source and does not specifically mention title of article or any variant of the phrase. [7]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Added back, almost immediately, by Evrik, at [8]. Evrik, I'm trying to improve the page. But we have to remove primary sources before improvement can begin. This definitely violates WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in question under the history section is: Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch. That is not original research. It is a factual statement that puts the article in context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: Is it okay to use a 1929 postcard to backup the sentence: Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch. [9] -- or does that violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:No original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Clearly original research. It is the product of some editor's investigation of the motif of lynching in Soviet propaganda. WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What the article's sentence does is interpret the postcard in the context of the history of Soviet propaganda and relates that to the catchphrase. You can't get that from the postcard itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If it's interesting, we can have it as an external link, but to have it in the article's body as the earliest example of this when no secondary source is provided to back that up is WP:OR. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. It is not OR. Images are just there to support article text (they are not intended to be stand-alone items), so it has to be acceptable for editors to search for appropriate images to insert into the article that support article text. As long as there is sourced article text mention of Soviet imagery from the 1920s and 1930s, to have this 1929 image as an example of such Soviet imagery seems acceptable to me. The arguable OR is to have this subject as a stand-alone article in order to allege a criticism deflection function was central to the image's or phrase's origin. I see no defensive origin here, it was attack. Pointing out injustices like lynching and racial intolerance was one of many arguments presented by the Soviet Union against capitalist America. The Soviet Union was the only substantial industrial economy unaffected by the Great Depression, so the position of ordinary workers in the 1930s Soviet Union would have been better than those in America or Europe, i.e., there was no need for the production of material to deflect criticism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This comment, unfortunately, is not backed up by site policies WP:PRIMARY, WP:No original research, and WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You do not understand site policy regarding images. 99% of the images on Wikipedia would go if you were correct (since you are essentially saying that only images found in sources can be reproduced on Wikipedia).The same policies that apply to content apply to image captions, but the images themselves just have to be concerned with being on-topic, have a npov, not add undue weight, etc., as well as having the appropriate copyright status for inclusion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
      • @Tiptoethrutheminefield:We are not talking about placing an image for show in an article. We are talking about using an image as the source itself for article text. Please see [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Exactly. In fact, that is a further point: I think using an image as a citation would always be original research. With regard to Tiptoe's other comments, I think the historical argument does have some basis. The catchphrase seems to come from the post-WW2 period, so it doesn't make much sense to refer to Soviet imagery from the 1920s and 30s.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was about placing in an actual image. Obviously the image itself can't be a source for text content - an image has no citable opinion or position. But the page giving details of it, like the artist, title, period created, could be a source. However, I agree the wording that had been used to accompany the mention of this image was not sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the 1930 Bezbozhnik u Stanka image. Has anyone noticed it looks like it has been censored (across the chest of the Statue of Liberty)? I had a look for an uncensored version, but only found the original from which the Wikipedia image came from [11]. The page actually appears to have been cut into several pieces at some point, then reassembled but with a portion missing. So that portion of it had not actually been censored, though the page's damage could have been due to censorship. Note that part of the later added English gloss of the Russian text is also missing (suggesting the damage occurred in America). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's censorship, just damage.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanded the article

Expanded the article.

State before: [12]. State after: [13].

Now the article brings together a multitude of different sources from different types including scholarly academic journals, books, and other print media. Sagecandor (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Too much non-English

Russian-language phrases, both in Cyrillic and Roman lettering, make this article unreadable from the beginning. If you really feel the Russian-language versions are instrumental in conveying the ideas here, please take it further down the article, preferably in its own paragraph. I however, do not feel they add anything more than confusion and visual chaos in an English-language Wikipedia page. It's not difficult to imagine any given phrase can be written in another language. 64.90.147.84 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Addressed this, by trimming some, and adding more new content, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Notability

After such a long time of editing back and forth, so far there are not solid sources which analyze the phrase in detail beyond footnotes with basic explanation. Every language has an enormous number of catch phrases, cultural inside jokes and slogans. Since they are unknown and unclear to a foreigner, each and every one is explained to readers here and there. But encyclopedia articles must be written on topics which were a subject of reasonable research published in reliable sources.

It appears this article lacks significant coverage, and I am thoughtful of listing for deletion, since the article is oscillating between dicdef and original research for 12 years now. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is death by a thousand cuts, where you slice the article up so fine as to make it easy to dismantle the whole thing. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. My slices are explained in edit summaries, which are listed it the talk page above, for ease of discussion. The slices are "so fine" for ease of discussion point by boint. Please contest them one by one. Please provide the proof of the notability of the subject according to wikipedia guidelines. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So, you admit you're trying to dismantle the article, line by line? --evrik ^(talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am dismantling the article by deleting pieces and explaining the deletion of every piece. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not answering further in this thread of the discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So you failed to demonstrate subject notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there are four separate discussions going on about this article. Nothing more is being accomplished in this one. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. If you want to dispute notability, take it to articles for deletion. Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how to dispute notability. And you have to learn a bit about civility. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm being quite civil, thank you. But a discussion about notability is not going to determine notability. Rather, that is what WP:AFD is for. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

re: "a discussion about notability is not going to determine notability." - what a weird statement. Discussions is the only way we establish notability in wikipedia. And no, AFD is not the only venue to establish notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in polarized discussions as this one appears to be, there is unfortunately unlikely to be a concrete outcome as to notability one way or the other, and the best option to determine that would be WP:AFD. Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In other words, you are saying that a broader independent consensus is required, since participants stuck. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but also sometimes these sorts of discussions focus on the state of the article itself at present, rather than what the article could be in the future with its topic potential. Unfortunately sometimes the best way to assess notability is to directly improve the article with those sources, rather than discuss the sources. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. [14]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

There is a clear consensus against a merge to Propaganda in the Soviet Union#Themes. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think user:evrik is onto something here. At the same time I agree that, taken narrowly, the current article is WP:SYNTHESISish. IMO a proper solution is to put the article into a wider context. Currently it is about a single phrase, which is not much. However one may create a subsection in Propaganda in the Soviet Union#Themes. It has "Anti-Tsarist" "Anti-German" and "Anti-Polish" theme sections. Just the same, it may contain "Anti-American". IMO in this place nearly whole article will no longer be COATRACK. I say "nearly whole", because I still disagree with some statements, but this not critical. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to suggest {{mergeto}}, but found that the article is protected. If you think it is worth hassle, I may post an edit-protected request. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Already survived one deletion attempt and there are plenty of sources that directly discuss the phrases themselves and their use over time. Sagecandor (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To satisfy WP:GNG, the sources must provide significant coverage. Every phrase, even every phrase may be found discussed in google, but we don't have an article about every phrase, because there is no significant coverage of it, just mentions in passing. The policy says: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The topic is notable on its own. The article already does a reasonable job of establishing that. Further discussion about notability could take place at WP:AFD. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I am not challenging notability. You failed to read my statement carefully. I am giving a suggestion how to resolve the WP:SYNTHESIS issue the article suffers from without "decimating" the text. Two weeks ago I placed "OR" tag on it, which was removed during revert war. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Proposing to merge away article places it at risk of being cut down in parent article to nothing. So similar discussion to notability needed. Article has several good sources even if remove some synthesis sources. And many other secondary sources out there. Sagecandor (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Again, you did not understand my suggestion in full. On the contrary, the subject will be expanded considerably, and I personally will take part in this, because Soviet anti-Americanism is a ridiculously under-covered subject in Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm glad you will, and I agree with you about your second point. Perhaps a way forward would be for me to work on the article in a userspace draft and cut out all the synthesis and original research that way, and add back in secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

              Since you and me are planning to work on it, how about instead of merging, to rename this article to Anti-American sentiment in the Soviet Union (similarly to, e.g., Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and proceeding with expanding it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

              Sounds like a great idea for its own new separate article that is needed. Sagecandor (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem with defending against claims of OR, COATRACK and SYNTH is that all one has to do is claim that those three issues exist and then anyone who wants to content left in has to defend it. I believe that this short article does a very good job of defining the saying and then putting it into context. There are five paragraphs in this article. Why don't we look at them, one by one. --evrik ^(talk) 19:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge -- The problem with a merge of this article is the same as with the proposed merge of "Three whom God should not have Created": any merge would be to a much more general (higher-level) article, and would likely result in the info from this article being blurred together with a bunch of other only loosely-related stuff. If the subject-matter of this article is a distinctive phenomenon which meets minimal standards of notability, then it needs to be discussed in a separate article, even if the article is necessarily rather narrowly specific. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - this is very much a known phrase, and I agree with those who say that merging it into another article risks losing its focus. It may be hard to find non-primary sources about it, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't try; it's very much a subject worth wrestling with because of the window it provides on Soviet society. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge - The shortcomings of this article have been pointed out continuously over the past DECADE. It seems unlikely that the problems are going to be resolved. If secondary sources existed, it seems likely they would have been found. We do not need an article about a catchphrase. There's not much to say about it. Even supporters of the article don't want to write about it; they want to write about the broader topic. Common sense tell us that we should merge this into a broader article and stop the endless war.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The strengths of the article have far outweighed any shortcomings. --evrik ^(talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. There's too much information here, and too many lenses of interpretation on the title phrase, to merge into the other article. This is better off being renamed to be about Soviet criticism of American racism. My preferences for this article are renaming/merging a sentence/deletion/keeping the article as it is now.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Five against the merge, no consensus for a merge. Plus there is too much material now to merge, all material directly pertains to this particular specific topic. Done. Improved the page: [15]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with sources

The sources have been greatly improved, but there remain problems with bias and circular sourcing.

• As previously stated, The Diplomat clearly draws on this article. No one else connects Dmitry Moor's lithograph about the Scottsboro Boys with the catchphrase. In fact, there is very little connection.
• "The Brute-Force Left" is an incoherent rant against the Left, which includes passages like: "The fun part for the Left is that, in Mount Holyoke as in Pyongyang, totalitarianism is magnified by madness, and thus The Vagina Monologues must be suppressed on the grounds that not all women have vaginas."
• Daniel Greenfield talks about "Soviet days when the regime was importing African Communists to train as terrorists at their universities on a regular basis". He concludes that "The only people who believe this garbage also believe everything Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald say".
• Allison Quinn seems to have sourced her information from here. Her comment that "Racial discrimination in the West dominated Soviet propaganda and featured heavily in all forms of media, even comics and science fiction novels" seems to be based on original research in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the worst case of WP:SYNTH I have ever seen, but obviously it is futile to fight against the enthusiasts. It could have been dismantled line by line, but I better spend time writing something more useful for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(1) User is making unfounded assumptions and inferences based on their own original research. (2) User is quoting an irrelevant portion of the source not related to the subject of this article. (3) Again, quoted portion of source not relevant to subject of this article. (4) Again, user is making unfounded assumptions and inferences based on their own original research. Sagecandor (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: R8R (talk · contribs) 12:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the article during the first GAN. My concerns from back then have been addressed. I will review the article once again to ensure I haven't overseen any problems.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Still looks good to me. All criteria seem to be satisfied or close to that: here are the few nitpicks I could produce:

• Michael Bohm, a U.S. reporter working out of Moscow, became the target of the phrase after appearing on the political talk show Sunday Evening With Vladimir Solovyov. While I, as a Russian, happen to know some information about the show, it is fair to presume most native English speakers won't. It perhaps would be great to say that this show is run on a major TV channel---a state-run channel---in the prime time. That would provide some context.

• I happen to know some of the media mentioned---The Economist, for example---but it could be better to generally describe some of the less-known ones. "Writing for The New Republic" is barely useful. "Writing for the American liberal magazine The New Republic" works much better. Same applies for: National Review; FrontPage Magazine; The Diplomat; Open Democracy; Haaretz.

Perhaps that is it. Once these issues have been resolved, I'll be happy to promote the article.--R8R (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@R8R:Thank you for these helpful suggestions. I've made the changes per all of your recommendations, as I've agreed with all of your points. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no further objections. Congratulations!--R8R (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

For the record, the pictures and copyvio are all fine.--R8R (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Comments about the removed original research

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{rfc}} I removed large swaths of original research which constitutes of WP:SYNTHESIS from disparate sources none of which speaks of the phrase. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• 21:46, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,208 bytes) (-2,597)‎ . . (→‎History: rm original opinions about "earlier evidence of the concept") (undo)
• 1:45, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,805 bytes) (-1,444)‎ . . (→‎History: rm original explanation of the joke) (undo)
• 21:44, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,249 bytes) (-457)‎ . . (→‎top: rm original conclusion based on interview of an arbitrary emigrant) (undo)
• 21:42, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,706 bytes) (-1,860)‎ . . (→‎top: 100% WP:SYNTH in the lede) (undo)
• 21:41, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,566 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (original unreferenced opinion about association of the two terms) (undo)

Evrik (talk · contribs) essentially restored an old version criticized by several editors. Please do not restore the text without fixing serious violations of the WP:NOR policy. This user does this not the first time. If this done again, the involvement of admins will be requested. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Weren't you put in a time out over this article? I reverted the article back to the version that had consensus. You keep driving the chnages, and are now trying to get the whole thing deleted. I think you may be biased. --evrik ^(talk) 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't attack other editors. Please discuss the article, not wikipedians. Yes, I am trying to delete pieces of wikipedia which IMO are against wikipedia rules about content. We do deletion all the time. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First, I sadly concur that content you removed has problems with WP:OR. Similarly, regarding [16], I can see the parallel, but since the sourced articles do not cite this saying, this is again OR. While we need a better coverage of modern Russian propaganda, this has to be done in a way that meets Wikipedia's policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a short article. It now has 23 citations. The citations may not quote he article, but they do substantiate the concepts. --evrik ^(talk) 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is very close to WP:SYNTHESIS... I think there are better places to discuss Russian propaganda, such as post-truth article, and so on. Stretching it into here is not what I think is best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It is definitely a synthesis, and the article is a coatrack to criticise Russian propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a coatrack. The article actually has a logical progression. What you call synthesis and original research is merely an explanation of the history and context. I have listed this for others to come in and review this independently. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is your explanation of the history, based on synthesis of disparate cherry-picked sources. This explanation is not published anywhere. There have been many years to find solid sources. So far there are none. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You do nothing by go against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing. This isn't a coatrack, nor is it a synthesis. --evrik ^(talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The article resoundingly survived a deletion debate that resulted in "Keep", at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And you are lynching Negroes. There are several good sources mentioned there. Also can try researching sources that specifically mention phrases: "And you are lynching Negroes" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and also "And you are hanging blacks" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In the future, if the article sticks to only those sources that directly mention these phrases or close variants, that would make for a much better article that would be much more difficult to dispute. Sagecandor (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The deletion review was 10 years ago. The problem (or one of the problems) is that the catchphrase which is the apparent subject is used as a coatrack on which to hang various material about Soviet and Russian propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What you call coatrack is really context and history. --evrik ^(talk) 14:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is your cherry-picked interpretation of the context and history. There are no reliable sources which put the subject into any context and history. Your cherry-picking of historical facts is coatrack, because sources do not describe relation of the subject with facts you pick. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps you should list each paragraph you disagree with and we can go from there. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already listed edit summaries for my edits. Please comment on them. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of WP:SECONDARY sources out there that directly discuss "And you are lynching Negroes" and/or "And you are hanging blacks" -- that if we were to limit the article to only those sources that use those exact phrases or close variants -- it will still be quite a lot of sources to draw from. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such sources? Really? None? Not even one? Sagecandor (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment Could the creator specify the specific text and sources on which to comment/vote? If not, please cancel this RFC, it is too general. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say a discussion on the paragraph in the history section would be a good start. --evrik ^(talk) 22:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't a proper RfC per se, but my opinion would be to rename the article to something broader title such as Soviet criticism of racism in the United States, which would both be a topic that is notable (e.g. this entire academic book on the topic) and broad enough to support more than just references to this phrase or that phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That would be a great article to have, but it would turn into a different topic entirely. Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I oppose that as it is a completely different article. --evrik ^(talk) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant I Oppose it for this article, support it as a new separate article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't see how it would be a completely different article. Everything in this article could easily fit in under my proposed title (e.g. Soviet use of the term, cultural jokes, modern-day criticism, etc.). That would also solve the concerns that many of the sources aren't about this exact phrase, but just general Soviet attacks against racism in America. If this article is kept at this name, then yes, than most of it would have to be cut down to the bare minimum, and only mention the exact phrase or very close variants. I much prefer my proposal to rename.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but there are other sources out there we are not just considering this article and its current state but the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there are no other sources which cover the topic other than using the phrase. And the sources cited in the article are barely dicdef about phrase origin from a joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

None ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I failed to find any. If you have more, please cite them. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And my opinion is that the topic is better suited under a better, broader name. The content currently here is inappropriate given its title. -- -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• this article is about the saying, "And you are lynching Negroes" --evrik ^(talk) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Done. Improved the page: [17]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does the concept of this Article Make Sense?

The entire point of this "phrase" is that America has no moral authority on which to attack the USSR over anything. That does not seem like a fallacious argument, but rather ordinary common sense. Everything in this article seems built to reinforce the American side of things without even acknowledging that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.164.23 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

While it can be used that way, it can also be used as a substitute for defending or refuting an unsavory allegation, i.e. if an American admirer of Franco were to claim that the leftist forces in the Spanish Civil War burned churches and raped nuns, it would not be appropriate to reply with "yeah well there was a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry in the US back then too." In other words, whataboutism. Such usage seems to be what most people associate with the "phrase." --Ismail (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not? If someone criticises anti-Catholic bigotry in Spain, but not in the US, aren't they being inconsistent? I think it depends on the argument. It's not a logical fallacy as such to raise related issues. It is very hypocritical of the US to raise human rights issues against other countries when they continue to abuse the human rights of other people (up to and including murder) of people based on the colour of their skin. It is wrong to try to counterbalance American racism with the completely unrelated issue of Soviet domination of the Eastern Bloc. The logical approach would be to deal with each issue on its merits.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The concept of this article is, on its face, an important article in this era of the "Firehose of Falsehood." --evrik ^(talk) 17:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate because a) the contexts are entirely different (Anti-Catholic bigotry among American Protestants helping cost Al Smith the 1928 election isn't equivalent to the atrocities the Francoists accused their atheist opponents of during the Spanish Civil War); b) it doesn't actually address the argument. Another example: the Great Purges in the USSR saw hundreds of thousands shot under false charges of spying for foreign states. If an opponent were using this fact to extol the American justice system, then criticism of the latter would be fine. But if one were to respond to the question "how do you address the blatant lawlessness exhibited during the Great Purges in the Soviet Union" by simply claiming that America's justice system also has innocent people pleading guilty, that would seem to constitute whataboutism. --Ismail (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't know how to effect a merge, but I know that it needs to be discussed first. The article on Whataboutism covers a lot of information on the Russian usage of "tu quoque", including "...and you are lynching Negroes". I think that these two articles should be merged. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed a year ago There apparently was another merger discussion, but I can't find it. The archiving on these pages has always been strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

All the merger proposals have failed for this article and Whataboutism, because there's a divide in their subject topic. Stickee (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, it's because a small clique of editors have a bizarre fixation with the subject. Only history can judge.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I oppose any merge proposal. This article stands on its own. --evrik ^(talk) 17:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The article probably needs to be merged into another that does not exist yet. A good start would be expanding Propaganda in the Soviet Union#Themes to cover Anti-American and Anti-Racist themes.--Pharos (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You can propose it, but it will probably be rejected (for the sixth time). --evrik ^(talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As discussed before, a merge would almost certainly mean that only a small amount of the information contained in this article would be preserved within an article on a broader subject-matter. AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The ideal merger candidate would not be an existing article, but something like Anti-racism in Soviet propaganda (a sub-topic of the last proposed merger target).--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know what that proposed article title would even mean. "And you are lynching Negroes" is not an expression of Soviet anti-racism, but a hypocritical Soviet accusation against American hypocrisy for the purpose of deflecting the topic away from the Soviets' own bloodstained hands. AnonMoos (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

In other words, if the USSR claimed that "Black Lives Matter", they are hypocrites, but if the USA complains about the Soviet treatment of artists this is justified, even though America does not look after its artists. This is an entirely biased premise for an article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not making any sense nobody has even mentioned BLM and stop the wild speculations already you are editing an encyclopedia, not a fucking personal blog. Wingwraith (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jack_Upland, it doesn't seem like you'll be able to offer any useful comments on this article unless and until you can wrap your head around the historical fact that there weren't really any black people directly involved in "And you are lynching Negroes". There was a duel of propaganda rhetorics and propagandists, and in fact neither side cared too much about the fate of actual black people (who were mostly rather distant, socially and/or geographically from where the propagandizing was going on). The whole thing was mostly not even really about blacks, but about propaganda memes and tropes that were conveniently at hand for lazy propagandists... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The current article title is (literally) the punch line to a joke about a particular theme in Soviet propaganda. I think that the major themes of Soviet propaganda are themselves notable, for example the (anti-)religious theme, the internationalist theme, and also the theme about opposition to Western racism. Here is an article about the artistic aspect of this genre of propaganda. I certainly think that satirizations of this kind of propaganda would fit comfortably under a slightly broader article.--Pharos (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As implied in my comment of it "02:21, 12 May 2018" above, it was rhetorical strategy which was used a number of times in Soviet media or by Soviet spokesmen, so that it eventually became a kind of stereotype or cliché of Soviet propaganda practices, and from there it then became the subject of dark humor -- so that its occurrence as a punch-line was part of the third stage. It does not owe its notability exclusively to humor. AnonMoos (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better in a broader article. That would be less POV.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are POV problems, then they need to be dealt with right now in this article (however, your past comments above are not too relevant). What's guaranteed to happen in a merge is that specificity and detail will be lost, since this article covers what is notable and relevant to "And you are lynching Negroes", while the other article will only cover what is notable and relevant to overall general Soviet propaganda purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't agree with my comments, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. I don't agree with your comments that there were no black people involved. The punchline makes a joke about real events that really occurred.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

---

And you are lynching Negroes → Racial hypocrisy in Soviet propaganda – The current article title is (literally) the punch line to a joke about a particular theme in Soviet propaganda, and is woefully inappropriate to cover an article on anything other than the mere joke itself. I think that the major themes of Soviet propaganda are themselves notable, for example the (anti-)religious theme, the internationalist theme, and also the theme about opposition to Western racism. Here is a an article about the artistic aspect of this genre of propaganda; an alternative could also be to broaden it a bit to Race in Soviet propaganda at some point. Pharos (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• But the article is largely about the phrase. This move would change the scope of the article. —  AjaxSmack  22:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• It would not change the scope, but only expand it a bit. Currently, large parts of the article are about the racial hypocrisy theme, with mention of the phrase shoehorned in. The phrase is properly used to describe a particular genre of (post)-Soviet political satire, but not the actual historical propganda campaign.--Pharos (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Title is WP:PRECISE as it is about the phrase/meme. We already have Propaganda in the Soviet Union which uses the term "racial" exactly ONE time with no mention of "hypocrisy". Not saying it does or doesn't exist, but this isn't the article to start writing about it within. Changing it this way would be a WP:COATRACK problem. Considering that this article passed into Good Article with the current title, I don't see any reason to think it should be changed. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• The current title is appropriate for an article about the Russian humour topic. It's literally a punchline. The article is currently, and has always been, about something much broader than this particular Russian joke - and yes, it has had the wrong name from the start. It is about Soviet propaganda, not Soviet jokes.--Pharos (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I looked back at the earliest version, and its always been about the saying. It wouldn't be right to repurpose the article. -- Netoholic @ 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• The earliest version is very clearly about accusations and counter-arguments in Soviet propaganda. Which is a perfectly fine topic for an article. The problem lies in giving such a topic an ahistorical title, after the punchline of a joke that was not actually used in such propaganda (but was used to satirize it later).--Pharos (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Netoholic. The article is largely about the phrase itself, or at least it's the central theme. When you struggle to find an appropriate alternative name for an article (and I don't think the proposed one fits), it's a sign that it's not broken. No such user (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• If the article was about the phrase itself, the first sentence would be, "And you are lynching Negroes" is a Russian political joke... and it would be about the comedians who used it, and satire in Soviet underground culture. Which is not the article we have here, which takes the joke title, and appropriates it for a larger historical propaganda topic.--Pharos (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Propaganda in the Soviet Union where it can be dealt with neutrally. Clearly, as Netoholic has said, that article does not have enough information about racial issues.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Numerous issues with the proposed change. For one, the new title is presumptuous and doesn't seem to fully understand the phrase as used by Soviet propaganda. The phrase doesn't really have anything to do with racial hypocrisy, it's just a whataboutism regarding human rights. For another, it fails to account for the full scope of the article. This phrase is not just an element of Soviet propaganda, but a logical fallacy derived from that propaganda. I'm not opposed to using this article's content in a separate article about Soviet propaganda, but the proposed title doesn't seem appropriate or accurate. Sorry. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this page has enough to stand on it's own and is WP:PRECISE in accordance with the article title guidelines. Stickee (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

FYI

Sagecandour who led this article to GA status has been banned as a sock puppet.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Links copied from And you are lynching Negroes to Whataboutism. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Links copied from Whataboutism to And you are lynching Negroes, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not an actual Soviet slogan

This article is written in a rather odd way, so that one would get the impression that this was an actual Soviet slogan, a common phrase used verbatim in state propaganda. Instead the actual phrase appears to be a sort of Russian humour popular satire on the Soviet habit of deflecting questions about internal human rights problems. This should be clearer in the article.--Pharos (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this article is very odd. It is focused on the editors' own peculiar obsessions with and interpretations of alleged Soviet propaganda from decades ago. It is a confused and confusing synthesis of actual Soviet propaganda, satire of Soviet propaganda, and miscellaneous related commentary. There seems to be a jarring attempt to belittle the ill treatment of real African-Americans on behalf of notional citizens in the Eastern Bloc who were deprived of their human rights in an unrelated incident. It's not an actual Soviet slogan, and none of this is real. But the lynching of black men in America was real. This amounts to choosing nonsense over truth.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It was obviously not a slogan in the same sense as "Workers of the world unite!", but it was an overall rhetorical strategy which was resorted to a number of times in Soviet media or by Soviet spokesmen, to the degree that it became a kind of stereotype or cliché of Soviet propaganda practices, and the subject of dark humor. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. AnonMoos (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

But that's not what the article says.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, there are at least four different citations in the article that contradict what you are saying. --evrik ^(talk) 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Citations of what exactly, contradicting what???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, back in USSR, there were jokes' genre: "international" Armanian Radio gets a question". The joke goes as follows:

Americans call to Armenia's radio and ask
- Is it possible, even for an engineer, to afforn a car in USSR?
Armenian radio took a long pause and only could answer
- Ah... Ah... And in your country, negroes get lynched!!

It's "A u vas" (in your area/country), not just "you", so the title is flawed, I would label it as "bad style".

Joke here is not just over the going full ti quoque, the joke is also about the fact Wester engineer is a person with a lot of work to deal with, yet also highly paid, able to afford a new car in 2-3 monthly salaries; but Soviet engi would fail at buying a new car due to ages-long waiting list and absence of any connections to make the process any faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchyotka (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevance and synthesis

This article seems to be accumulating more and more irrelevant material. Izvestia Looks Inside the USA doesn't seem to discuss the topic at all. The reference to the Scottsboro Boys seems hardly relevant because they were put on trial not lynched. The article seems to be determined to draw on any source, even a science fiction poem.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

From the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the Scottsboro Boys: "The cases included a lynch mob before the suspects had been indicted." No, they did not ultimately die by lynching; yes, it is relevant because there was still an obvious intent to lynch them and the Soviet accusation refers to a trend or culture of lynching and lynch mobs of black people in the United States, of which the Scottsboro Boys case clearly is an example, rather than any single incident. The section of this article discussing the Scottsboro Boys also does a good job of describing Soviet response to that case and why that case in particular was influential in the historical development and application of this joke in the USSR. As for "Izvestia Looks Inside the USA," you are right and it should be removed. There is nothing particularly relevant about it to the article as a whole, and certainly nothing to this topic specifically, or the sentence it is cited to support. Fantasmaguerico (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Scottsboro Boys is not a good example of lynch mobs in the USA. I have removed "Izvestia Looks Inside the USA".--Jack Upland (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight and other article issues

While the article heavily refers to the phrase being tu quoque, and how this form of rhetoric been used by the Soviet Union as deflection of criticism towards itself, and the phrase's entrance into jokes that implicitly criticise the Soviet Union — then the article fails to properly reflect if this political retort has had any actual effect on internal U.S. policies.

Such as: if and when this Soviet retort was referred to in order to improve the civil rights of black Americans in the United States, so as to make it impossible for the Soviet Union to criticize America.

In addition, the article mostly cites the views of journalists and political pundits who describe the phenomenon of the phrase, though all but one have realised the nature of the retort that was meant to harm the U.S. position when criticizing the Soviet Union: they know and agree, that it's tu quoque and whataboutism, but at the same time, fail to recognise, that the United States really has to have a squeaky-clean reputation when criticising others on human rights. -Mardus /talk 20:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, it's hard to decipher what you deleted, added or reorganized. I also don't understand what change you are proposing here. --evrik ^(talk) 21:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

These are just general improvements. Mostly to set responses and stuff in chronological order, and then consolidated references to avoid overuse of the <ref> tag. I believe I haven't deleted anything of substance. The main point of my criticism of the article is harder to address; probably because of a lack of sources citing change in the United States directly in reaction to the phrase. -Mardus /talk 21:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mardus -- Soviet propaganda had little effect on United States politics. Some Americans were very aware of the discrepancy between the U.S. proclaiming its freedom and democracy and the way blacks were treated in the country, but that didn't necesarily mean that they were willing to accept criticism from Stalin's flunkies. Probably Gunnar Myrdal had more effect than Radio Moscow.... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)