Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

Active discussions
And you are lynching Negroes has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 17, 2010WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
February 10, 2015WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
December 26, 2016WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
January 2, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
January 3, 2017Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
March 12, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
July 17, 2017Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that during the Cold War, Soviet leaders used "And you are lynching Negroes..." as an ad hominem attack against the U.S.?
Current status: Good article

Not an actual Soviet sloganEdit

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)

Requested move 29 May 2018Edit

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 NegroesRacial 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)
  • 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.

Undue weight and other article issuesEdit

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)

FYIEdit

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

AttributionEdit

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)
Return to "And you are lynching Negroes" page.