Talk:William Lynch speech

message: Added tag, because of conflict in editions. D. J. Bracey (talk)  20:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'm unclear as to why the the article is tagged with the  template. Does the conflict in editions refer to the speech itself or to this article? If there are discrepancies between different versions of the speech, then that should be mentioned in the article, but it isn't really the article's problem. (Though not mentioning the discrepancies might be POV; perhaps this is what you meant?) Second, we really should cite this article's source for the Willie Lynch speech itself (and I have tagged the relevant section). This becomes more important if, indeed, there are different versions of the speech out there. Also, some sources (such as the Final Call website) claim copyright on the speech's text. Finally, Louis Farrakhan cites the speech in his open letter about the Millions More Movement and I have noted this in the article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Frog, I found a source (which has been there since the article in "external links", but never cited).  I could find no other version than the one cited.  Thanks. Molotov  (talk)  16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you! -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: You all (Gyrofrog and Jerzy) can do what ever.  Once again I have been proven wrong by "own ignorances"  Maybe my presence would be better somewhere else.  I have been contributing - and created - this article, and I was only trying to do best job as possible.  But I guess that just doesn't cut it although the speech has been on here since May. Molotov  (talk)  03:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article still have the cleanup tag though? Molotov  (talk)  03:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  First: I'll let Jerzy speak for him or herself, but from what you've written, it seems as though you're taking my comments personally. They most certainly are not intended to upset you; rather, the whole point of my placing them here is to further the collaborative effort (this is a wiki, after all; you have to expect people to come along and want to modify something at some point). Second: I'm sure there are hundreds of articles needing attention, cleanup, copyright resolution, etc. that have been around a lot longer than this one (see :Category:Pages needing attention, for example). Third: I don't think the cleanup tag hurts, though I have just taken a stab at a couple of little fixes myself. I still don't see the need for the  tag. What is the dispute? Does the article leans too much toward the "fake speech" or "real speech" POV? No one has even mentioned that here, and the first comment which mentions POV isn't very clear about what the problem is (though now I just notice this was your old user name). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said I had a problem with other people editting - I have a problem when Jerzy tells me I am some "abyss of misinformation," insults my intelligence - and writing skills - and to the bottom line I am always wrong here. Molotov  (talk)  04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fuel-derived from feuel- 1000-1500- Middle English-eul (n.) Also fewail(l)e, fewall, fowaile, fowel(l, feoile, fuaile, fuel(le.[OF fouaille, feuaile.] Matter for burning, fuel; fig. fuel for the fires of hell [1st quot.]; ~ wod, firewood. Maybe some of the anachronisms were around before 1712? - srce-http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?size=First+100&type=headword&q1=feuel&rgxp=constrained   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.207.47 (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question was over the word "refuel", not "fuel."  I could not find "refuel" at the website you cited. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine 

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

message: According to another Wikipedia article, the word "lynch" is named after Charles Lynch. One of the websites cited in this article also attributes this to Charles Lynch. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, other sources mention William Lynch, but place his date of birth 30 years after the speech was given (I had cited one reference for this the other day but forgot to mention it here). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of lynching 

message: I'm not sure how or whether to work this into the article, but it's strange that the speaker would make note of what year it was, not to mention the elaborate way in which he does so (e.g. "year of our Lord"). -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, regarding "I greet you here on the bank of the James River...", I'm guessing the people in the audience didn't need to be told where they were. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Check out the first item under "External links," and then follow the discussion links from there.  (The link had expired so I've updated this with the archive.org URL.) -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now added this information (ad cited the source) in the article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another discrepancy 

message: This speech is not even written in 18th century English. Its grammar and vocabulary are thoroughly modern, nor does it represent 18th C ideas about race. There is no way this is genuine. Paul B 16:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then where's the original, and what does it say? -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This is ridiculous

message: FREDERICK DOUGLAS SPEAKS ON WILLIE LYNCH
(Date Unknown)
To the slave-owners of Virginia
"The following treatise, to the knowledgeable, will be the missing link that has been sought to explain how we were put into the condition that we find ourselves in today. It confirms the fact that the slaveholder tried to leave nothing to chance when it came to his property; his slaves. It demonstrates, how out of necessity, the slave holder had to derive a system for perpetuating his cash crop, the slave, while at the same time insulating himself from retribution by his unique property.
A careful analysis of the following "handbook", will hopefully change the ignorant among our people who say "Why study slavery?" Those narrow minded people will be shown that the condition of our people is due to a scientific and psychological blue print for the perpetuation of the mental condition that allowed slavery to flourish. the slaveholder was keenly aware of the breeding principles of his livestock and the following treatise demonstrated that he thoroughly used those principles on his human live stock as well, the African Slave, and added a debilitating psychological component as well.
It was the interest and business of slaveholders to study human nature, and the slave nature in particular, with a view to practical results, and many of them attained astonishing proficiency in this direction. They had to deal not with earth, wood and stone, but with men and by every regard they had for their own safety and prosperity they needed to know the material on which they were to work.
Conscious of the injustice and wrong they were every hour perpetrating and knowing what they themselves would do, were they the victims of such wrongs, they were constantly looking for the first signs of the dreaded retribution. They watched, therefore, with skilled and practiced eyes, and learned to read, with great accuracy, the state of mind and heart of the slave, through his stable face. Unusual sobriety, apparent abstraction, sullenness, and indifference, indeed any mood out of the common way afforded ground for suspicion and inquiry. "Let's Make a Slave" is a study of the scientific process of man breaking and slave making. It describes the rationale and results of the Anglo Saxon's ideas and methods of insuring the master/slave relationship."
The End —the preceding comment is by Marketex - 21:13, 9 July 2006: Please sign your posts!
:This is unsourced, undated, and not in 19th century English. It may, however, be evidence that the hoax is spawning off more hoaxes. Septentrionalis 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Date unknown?  I'm not surprised.  After all, this is just another hoax designed to make the first hoax seem credible. 134.74.74.34 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Missing link" is probably an anachronism.  A.J.A. 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have any of you considered the fact that Frederick Douglass Discusses William Willie Lynch? 

message: I put a tag for the speech to be transferred to Wikisource. I'm out of time right now, or I'd do it myself. We don't need the whole thing here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuchullain (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 August 2006  (UTC)
:The problem with this is, how do we attribute the source?  Wikisource would require us to do so, and to demonstrate that we're allowed to upload it.  There are several versions of the speech, which one do we put on Wikisource?  And as has been previously discussed, some of the online sources assert their own copyright for the speech. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The speech in this article has, itself, undergone revision, and I don't know which (if any) version it is supposed to represent. All the more reason to remove it, I think, regardless of whether we can put it on Wikisource.  We've still provided external links to the speech.  Again, check some of the earlier discussion on this talk page. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over two months since I proposed removing the speech. I have gone ahead and done so. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikisource

message: Legacy
Thus, many present day divisions within the African American community could be traced from this idea. 
There are no 'divisions' with in the African American community in current day, this was a false statement and should be left out of the article. No proof that those ideas lead to any imaginary racial divisions among African Americans today, these perceptions are among everybody and should be  judged on an individual basis.Taharqa 18:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What divisions?

message: The following commentary belongs here on the talk page, not in the article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved commentary from article 

message: The article refers to two different people called William Lynchs - one born 1742, one alive in 1712, yet only the 1742 one has a page linked (and in the wrong context!) Surely we need to make a new entry. Matt Beard (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My assumption is that they're supposed to be the same person, but that the letter uses an inaccurate time frame.  (E.g., when the article says "[the letter] purports to be an address given by William Lynch" it links to the person born in 1742.) In any case I can't see having a separate article about the author of this letter, when we can't establish that the letter is genuine. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How to deal with two William Lynchs?

message: Don't mean to horn in if folks are maintaining this, but I broke up the Huge lead into a Lead, summary of content, and Hoax evidence sections.  Previously a summary of the argument was missing from the article.  I also added a blurb about the "Willie Lynch Chip", a term that you're sure to see in any afrocentric bookstore or street fair in the US.  My girlfriend asked me about it the other day, and I told her to search wikipedia, only to find those three words don't exist as a phrase here.  Just trying to meet an need!  As far as the ref link, I couldn't find ANYTHING that wasn't a bizarre rant, blog, or trying to sell a video/book.  Not ment to be spam, but I thought it was better than being unreffed. T L Miles (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Willie Lynch Chip", adding summary, lead, and hoax evidence sections 

message: The hoax section source is not credible so I have edited it and added disputed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.209.252 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement was that historians such as Jelani Cobb believe the text is a hoax. The source for that statement is Cobb's own writing to that end, so I don't see why the source is not credible.  Again, the statement says Cobb believes it is a hoax, it does not say it is a hoax.  Meanwhile, you re-worded the introduction to say that William Lynch gave the speech, and we've yet to see any source that verifies this (for one thing, the attributed Lynch was born 30 years after the speech).  I have adjusted the inrtroduction and removed "disputed" (there are better ways to flag problems, by the way: see WP:TMAIN). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks! -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax Disputed added 

message: Since there are so many "so called" descrepancies found, we can't possibly use this page as a valid account of events. If this page were valid, I would not be able to edit anything here.  If we are so concerned about the validity of this letter, why not look at some other sources.
Besides, even if some of the information is invalid, I'm sure it didn't just come out of 'thin air'. It seems quite believable.
Let's remember: "Anyone that controls media and propaganda, can control what people think."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.216.121 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently this article has 10 different references; of course additional reliable sources are welcome.  To date, no one has provided a reliable source attesting to the authenticity of the letter/speech. As for your concern about the letter being believable, even if it isn't authentic, note the article includes the following quotation: "even as an inauthentic document, it says something about the former and current state of African America". Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Technical..... 

message: I'm a bit dubious about this, but I did find this. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kwabena Ashanti 

message: In your first paragraph this line appears:
Since then, it has often been promoted as an authentic account of slavery during the 18th century, though its inaccuracies and anachronisms have led historians to conclude that it is a hoax.[2][3]
I like to look at original sources, however 2 does not have a link to follow, just a page number (which makes no sense because he has a journal entry on GMU) and when I check the name of the author listed, Rosenzweig (not even his full name, Roy Rosenzweig), the only link back is to this Wikipedia entry.  Or a Jewish theologian that died in 1929, because he's more famous than the man who actually wrote on the subject.
[3] is a broken link.  It plainly state the page I'm looking for does not exist.  There is a different link to the same source here which could be updated:
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2004/may.htm
And you can easily add the link for Roy Rosenzweig's source, who wrote [2], here:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/cached/introduction/link0.27a.pathwaysonhistweb.html
Emmywade (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: you're great! I've fixed the urls including a link to the historian Roy Rosenzweig's Wikipedia page. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources issue 

message: Since it is well established that the speech is likely a hoax, why not add the speech in so that people may understand what it is about past our summary? Past the sourcing issues there is a version of the speech that exists that I think should be there as a point of reference for the reader. That way when referencing anachronisms people can read it for themselves?Naominesmith (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add in false speech?