Talk:William Lynch speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyvio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fine

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Trying

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

Etymology of lynching

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

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

Another discrepancy

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

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)

In yet another discrepancy, the author states the Bible was given by "our King." While the King James version was authorized by James I, he was long dead by 1712. "Our King" at the time was Queen Anne.

J. J. in PA (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the speech mentions "As our boat sailed south on the James River..." yet to get from the "West Indies" to any part of Virginia that would have been meaningfully colonised at the time, the entire journey would have been North-West. Not to mention, why would he be so vague about the place he lived? Surely he would have said that his plantation was in Antigua or Jamaica or some specific location. Matt Beard (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

I've now added this information (ad cited the source) in the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

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

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

I agree that there is no way this is from the 18th C what else did they "refuel" back then.Mbrilftz237 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that the words may have been changed to give a better understanding to the audience of this present time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.187.248 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 October 2010

Then where's the original, and what does it say? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

FREDERICK DOUGLAS SPEAKS ON WILLIE LYNCH (Date Unknown)

To the slave-owners of Virginia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

"Missing link" is probably an anachronism. A.J.A. 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource

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)

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)

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)

What divisions?

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)

The divisions in which you fail to realize are self evident. Take the U.S.A for example, the violence in the community, the gangs of young black men who fight against eachother because of the direction in which they live and because of territory that doesn't even belong to them. (the slaves that stay on the north side of the hill and the slaves who stay on the south of the hill) even because of a certain level of intelligence we tend to think we are better than the next brother, which is another form of division.Divion is all around you. Open up your eyes (no offense) you can find me as marvin calvin@facebook.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.187.248 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved commentary from article

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

While I cannot swear to the existence of the Willie Lynch letter/speech, neither can anyone say with absolute certainty that it did not exist. Unfortunately, since slaves were not allowed to read and write, there are stories that have been passed down orally but for which there is no documented "proof" of their historical accuracy. Yet, black people from across this nation who have never met will know these same stories. That said, I must question the accuracy of the above statement that the Willie Lynch letter is an internet hoax. The knowledge of this letter has been in existance amongst black people for over a hundred years. The previous author questions its authenticity because the terms "mulatto" and "quadroon" were used in the letter. Just because those terms were used by whites to determine the worth of a black person at auction, does not mean that amongst black people themselves the terms "light-" and "dark-skinned" weren't used.

The previous author of this text also states that:

"The division between 'house' and 'field' slaves is historically inaccurate, as slaves employed in the plantation household were a subset of non-predial slaves (others included craftsmen such as carpenters and masons) and were under closer white supervision than were the field slaves."

The word "predial" is a variation of the word "praedial" meaning "land-owning". Everyone is aware, or should be aware that when referring to "house" and "field" slaves, of course these were non-land-owning individuals. The entire definition of the word "slave" as known in America indicates you could not own anything, including yourself. To indicate that somehow the Willie Lynch letter is inaccurate for indicating there was a division of house and field slaves is proposterous given that it is a known fact that there was a division of labor and individuals in this manner that still has repercussions today. I would ask that non-blacks please refrain from editorializing on things with which they are totally unfamiliar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.134.148 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2007

I wish to remind the editor about Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability and original research. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

November 2010

I have moved the following comment from the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

with skin color being the difference between slaves and slave owners how can you say skin color are distinctly 20th century in nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.128.139 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 November 2010

How to deal with two William Lynchs?

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)

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)

The "Willie Lynch Chip", adding summary, lead, and hoax evidence sections

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)

Hoax Disputed added

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)

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)

I believe it is fine the way you have edited it. The previous introduction stated it was a hoax, but there is no concrete evidence it is, so having a separate section for that is fine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.209.252 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 June 2008

Thanks! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Too Technical.....

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)

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)

Kwabena Ashanti

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

Sources issue

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)EmmyWade

@Emmywade: 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)

Add in false speech?

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)