![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I notice that the timeline of key events includes Jackie Robinson and his debut in major league baseball in 1947, but only makes a passing reference to Truman's executive order desegregating the military. Jackie Robinson was clearly a big deal because it put race relations and civil rights in the forefront of popular culture, but doesn't military desegregation qualify as a key event? Arguably, given the conscription at the time and the size of the U.S. military as a proportion of total U.S. population, military desegregation laid the groundwork for full desegregation later. Consequently, wouldn't it make sense to include it as a key event? Epstein's Mother 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the list of politicians who opposed the Civil Rights Movement during this period because most of the people on the list were not even alive during the period from 1955 to 1968. Some of them were actually 18th century politicians. Just leaving the few who were alive during that period would be misleading; it would be better to start the list all over again focusing on the important figures. The list also included only members of Congress, with no governors mentioned; that should be addressed if the list is revised and restored. -- Metropolitan90 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Some presumably uncontroversial inclusions in this respect would be James Eastland, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and Bull Connor. All, I think, rather unwavering in their positions in this period (although Wallace was probably being an opportunist, and Faubus might have been as well), and all very active in this period.
Slightly more controversially, I'd be inclined to mention J. Edgar Hoover in this respect; I think the question is more whether he qualifies as a "politician" than whether he opposed the movement. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not totally arguing for this case, but this article takes the view that civil rights were a "good" thing, with an overall positive stance, isnt this POV? While I agree, and I'm sure the majority would agree that it was a good thing, doesnt that mean that there is POV in the article, and maybe we should mention some of the "down sides" (if there are any) of the civil rights movements? I'm not sure how we do it, but just wondering if there is a way that we can tell people the facts, and let them decide that it was a good thing, rather than just telling them was and expecting them to accept this without drawing their own conclusions. 81.149.82.243 08:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the comments above, I propose renaming this article African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-present).
Like the two editors who commented previously, I came across this problem when I tried to Wikilink the phrase "civil rights activist" in Al Sharpton's biography. Sharpton, who was born in 1954, was not part of the civil rights movement between 1955 and 1968.
Another problem is that the article's title suggest that the civil rights movement is a thing of the past, which it isn't.
Obviously, renaming the article would expand its scope. We would need to add information to the article about civil rights activism during the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.
What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In the main article I counted 2 mentions of Malcolm X compared to at least 53 mentions of King. Surely in the interests of a NPOV, even if Malcolm X did not seek to be a part of the civil rights movement until late in his life, they should receive a fairly equal proportion of the article? For example, where is there mention of Malcolm's large contribution to the Voting Rights Act? Sadly this article reflects the all too widespread belief that Martin Luther King was the one and only civil rights leader. It was not just Black Nationalists who argued against this, then or now. -- AYBGerrardo ( talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted folks to know that daughter article Birmingham campaign is up for FAC. If you're interested in improving the article or commenting on it, here's the nomination. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the
"best organized, most highly disciplined, the most immediately effective of these was in Nashville, Tennessee."
and it is unsourced. However, Davis, Townsend (1998).
Weary Feet, Rested Souls: A Guided History of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 311.
ISBN
0393045927. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) seems to indicate that Greensboro was most successful, so I have added a {{
cn}} tag to the statement.
Toddst1 (
talk)
18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone added a lot of unsourced material that duplicated what was there, and also referred to events covered later in the article. I edited the material to combine it with the sourced material. -- Parkwells ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a "See also" section supposed to be limited to links not already present in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were renowned after WW2. I thought maybe they were purposely chosen for that reason, to be more respected by the local population (that is, the mob). But at least the linked presidents documents don't give proof of that. -- 790 ( talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I notice that the timeline of key events includes Jackie Robinson and his debut in major league baseball in 1947, but only makes a passing reference to Truman's executive order desegregating the military. Jackie Robinson was clearly a big deal because it put race relations and civil rights in the forefront of popular culture, but doesn't military desegregation qualify as a key event? Arguably, given the conscription at the time and the size of the U.S. military as a proportion of total U.S. population, military desegregation laid the groundwork for full desegregation later. Consequently, wouldn't it make sense to include it as a key event? Epstein's Mother 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the list of politicians who opposed the Civil Rights Movement during this period because most of the people on the list were not even alive during the period from 1955 to 1968. Some of them were actually 18th century politicians. Just leaving the few who were alive during that period would be misleading; it would be better to start the list all over again focusing on the important figures. The list also included only members of Congress, with no governors mentioned; that should be addressed if the list is revised and restored. -- Metropolitan90 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Some presumably uncontroversial inclusions in this respect would be James Eastland, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and Bull Connor. All, I think, rather unwavering in their positions in this period (although Wallace was probably being an opportunist, and Faubus might have been as well), and all very active in this period.
Slightly more controversially, I'd be inclined to mention J. Edgar Hoover in this respect; I think the question is more whether he qualifies as a "politician" than whether he opposed the movement. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not totally arguing for this case, but this article takes the view that civil rights were a "good" thing, with an overall positive stance, isnt this POV? While I agree, and I'm sure the majority would agree that it was a good thing, doesnt that mean that there is POV in the article, and maybe we should mention some of the "down sides" (if there are any) of the civil rights movements? I'm not sure how we do it, but just wondering if there is a way that we can tell people the facts, and let them decide that it was a good thing, rather than just telling them was and expecting them to accept this without drawing their own conclusions. 81.149.82.243 08:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Per the comments above, I propose renaming this article African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-present).
Like the two editors who commented previously, I came across this problem when I tried to Wikilink the phrase "civil rights activist" in Al Sharpton's biography. Sharpton, who was born in 1954, was not part of the civil rights movement between 1955 and 1968.
Another problem is that the article's title suggest that the civil rights movement is a thing of the past, which it isn't.
Obviously, renaming the article would expand its scope. We would need to add information to the article about civil rights activism during the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.
What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In the main article I counted 2 mentions of Malcolm X compared to at least 53 mentions of King. Surely in the interests of a NPOV, even if Malcolm X did not seek to be a part of the civil rights movement until late in his life, they should receive a fairly equal proportion of the article? For example, where is there mention of Malcolm's large contribution to the Voting Rights Act? Sadly this article reflects the all too widespread belief that Martin Luther King was the one and only civil rights leader. It was not just Black Nationalists who argued against this, then or now. -- AYBGerrardo ( talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted folks to know that daughter article Birmingham campaign is up for FAC. If you're interested in improving the article or commenting on it, here's the nomination. -- Moni3 ( talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states that the
"best organized, most highly disciplined, the most immediately effective of these was in Nashville, Tennessee."
and it is unsourced. However, Davis, Townsend (1998).
Weary Feet, Rested Souls: A Guided History of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 311.
ISBN
0393045927. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) seems to indicate that Greensboro was most successful, so I have added a {{
cn}} tag to the statement.
Toddst1 (
talk)
18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone added a lot of unsourced material that duplicated what was there, and also referred to events covered later in the article. I edited the material to combine it with the sourced material. -- Parkwells ( talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a "See also" section supposed to be limited to links not already present in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, they were renowned after WW2. I thought maybe they were purposely chosen for that reason, to be more respected by the local population (that is, the mob). But at least the linked presidents documents don't give proof of that. -- 790 ( talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)