![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
http://stubbornfacts.us/random/almost_forgotten_history • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a sic template in what is currently reference 30 marking a possible transcription error. The linked reference itself contains the transcription error, rather than it being the error of an editor here. Thus, please change the template to {{sic}}
rather than {{sic|?}}
.
Additionally, the other sic in the reference should preferably use the template rather than just writing "[sic]". 786b6364 ( talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Done The
{{sic|?}}}
should be a {{sic}}}
because {{sic|?}}}
is used to indicate uncertainty of whether the error is in the text being quoted or is in a quote within that text. Errors by editors here are simply corrected. Since I am in the section, I'll also change the other "[sic]" to a template. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
18:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have just done it myself, but I've not been autoconfirmed yet. 786b6364 ( talk) 00:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
A note attached to the External Links section suggests that new links first be proposed and discussed here before being added. I'd like to propose two additional links:
Articles by Civil Rights Movement Participants Online collection of articles written by participants ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans.
Documents from the Civil Rights Movement Online collection of original documents ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans.
Brucehartford ( talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The article title contains "1955–1968", but the first event is in 1954, and furthermore 1965–1968 aren't really described, and when they are, it's not in connection with "civil rights" (defined in the lead as opposed to economic justice, black power, or whatever). It might be reasonable to consider a name change that removes the years, since these make linking complicated and make it kind of hard to even read the title of the page. (Also: African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) is all well and good, but it doesn't seem to describe an autonomous "movement"; it might be more reasonably titled "African-American Civil Rights (1896–1954)" or "Prehistory of the African-American Civil Rights Movement".) (Oh, and there's also some stuff from after 1970 in the prisons section...)
Also, race riots? Really? IMO this is a totally loaded term, especially if you believe that many of the people involved were motivated by, idk, poverty, and not a specifically racial hatred? Does the involvement of mostly dark-skinned people automatically make them race riots? Unless we are willing to call all-white stuff "race" stuff, too? This is a race riot. (I'm also going to mention this over on the talk page at List of ethnic riots, which bizarrely includes the Stonewall riots as well as the events listed here. groupuscule ( talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Brucehartford ( talk) 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Now discovering that there is a whole scholarly movement towards a "long civil rights movement" perspective, precisely to connect and contextualize the 1960s actions with earlier struggles. The initiator of the concept (or at least of this terminology) is Jacquelyn Dowd Hall at UNC. Here's an article that lays out the theory.
Excerpt:
It took such effort because another force also rose from the caldron of the Great Depression and crested in the 1940s: a powerful social movement sparked by the alchemy of laborites, civil rights activists, progressive New Dealers, and black and white radicals, some of whom were associated with the Communist party. Robert Korstad calls it “civil rights unionism,” Martha Biondi the “Black Popular Front”; both terms signal the movement's commitment to building coalitions, the expansiveness of its social democratic vision, and the importance of its black radical and laborite leadership. A national movement with a vital southern wing, civil rights unionism was not just a precursor of the modern civil rights movement. It was its decisive first phase.
It also argues that the current narrative was cultivated very carefully by right-wingers in the '70s and '80s who wanted to use the "civil rights movement" to justify economic injustice with formal equality.
Reworking that narrative for their own purposes, these new “color-blind conservatives” ignored the complexity and dynamism of the movement, its growing focus on structural inequality, and its “radical reconstruction” goals. Instead, they insisted that color blindness—defined as the elimination of racial classifications and the establishment of formal equality before the law—was the movement's singular objective, the principle for which King and the Brown decision, in particular, stood.
On why they succeeded:
Germinated in well-funded right-wing think tanks and broadcast to the general public, this racial narrative had wide appeal, in part because it conformed to white, middle-class interests and flattered national vanities and in part because it resonated with ideals of individual effort and merit that are widely shared. The American creed of free-market individualism, in combination with the ideological victories of the movement (which ensured that white supremacy must “hide its face”), made the rhetoric of color blindness central to the “war of ideas” initiated by the New Right in the 1970s.
So I'm not saying we need to fixate on this one scholar's narrative or necessarily adopt her timeline. But I have seen, elsewhere, date ranges like 1942 to 1970 described as "mass direct action". (E.g., " The US Civil Rights Movement (1942-1968)".) This would definitely be a reasonable way to differentiate the midcentury American civil rights struggle from other efforts to create legal change. Reasons for moving the start date to 1942:
So I think that's a good option. I'd be interested to hear cases for others or for status quo. There's definitely no one right way to do this. groupuscule ( talk) 03:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this goes on a bit too much about the Kennedys and recommend deleting the following:
"In 1966, Robert Kennedy undertook a tour of South Africa in which he championed the cause of the anti-apartheid movement. His tour gained international praise at a time when few politicians dared to entangle themselves in the politics of South Africa. Kennedy spoke out against the oppression of the native population. He was welcomed by the black population as though a visiting head of state. In an interview with LOOK Magazine he said:
At the University of Natal in Durban, I was told the church to which most of the white population belongs teaches apartheid as a moral necessity. A questioner declared that few churches allow black Africans to pray with the white because the Bible says that is the way it should be, because God created Negroes to serve. "But suppose God is black", I replied. "What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?" There was no answer. Only silence.—Robert Kennedy , LOOK Magazine[74]" To me, these two paragraphs belong in his article, not here. Parkwells ( talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
African-American Civil Rights Movement | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Four leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. From left: Bayard Rustin, Andrew Young, (N.Y. Cong.William Ryan), James Farmer, and John Lewis in 1965. | ||||
Date | 1955-1968 | |||
Location |
United States, especially the
South | |||
Goals | End of racial segregation | |||
Methods | civil resistance, civil disobedience | |||
Resulted in | Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |||
Parties | ||||
| ||||
Lead figures | ||||
President of the United States
George Wallace |
Thoughts? -- Երևանցի talk 02:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Little Rock section, someone added "Little Rock, Arkansas, was in a relatively progressive Southern state." I deleted the reference to Arkansas being "relatively progressive." Someone then reverted my change. This isn't important enough for me to engage in a round revert/counter-revert but I think it's a misuse of language to apply the adjective "progressive" when it's a case of Arkansas not being quite as bad as Mississippi or Alabama. At the time in question, Arkansas maintained a thoroughly segregated school system, enforced Jim Crow segregation of public facilities throughout the state, and systematically denied blacks the right to vote. The fact that segregation in Arkasas was not enforced as violently as it was in some other southern states did not make Arkansas "progressive" or even "relatively progressive." It made Arkansas less bad, but that's not the same as "progressive." Brucehartford ( talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The subtitle of this article currently refers to "(1955-1968)", yet the actual years covered clearly go back to 1954 (the year of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision). Indeed, we could say coverage goes back to 1951, the year the first of the Brown v. Board lawsuits were filed. The Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement History and Timeline lists additional reasons for marking 1951 as the beginning of the modern movement. I propose that the title be amended either to 1951 or 1954. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've purposely kept away from doing much editing on the main article, or even reading it. But one of the things that stands out on the page - and this was pointed out to me a year or more ago - is that there is no section on the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement. I think the Open Housing Movement is considered a major movement by the main civil rights historians, and was one of SCLC's successful 1960s movements. For it was a successful movement, although not considered a success by some (and I don't understand how they've come to that conclusion). The law which emerged as a result of it - a law introduced after Dr. King's death to assure passage - became the last great Civil Rights Act of the 1960s. It probably should have a section of its own, or at least a footnote and a link, or maybe an entry in the 'See also' section. I won't write it, but might do some editing if it appears. It would make the page longer though (see above discussion about excess page length, which brought me to the page again). Randy Kryn 4:14 14 October, 2014 (UTC)
I came to this article because I saw that it needed some reformatting of very long sections, giving more columns and less length to the page. My edits took a very long time to load so I took the time to read parts of it. I (as a non-expert reader who has only general knowledge of the subject) saw that it remains sketchy in areas but it is overly long taken as a whole. I would recommend that the regular authors give consideration to splitting it into two or more smaller articles to facilitate adding more vital information on the subject without making an article which is so long that it jams computers which depend on dial-up or slow DSL. So I am going to tag it as needing a split. Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave it as a single article based on the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. At least until people start to complain about the download time. That said, if it's going to be broken into sections, it seems to me that there are four (rather than two) clear historic sub-periods:
1. 1951-1959, with the events leading up to Brown v. Board of Education, the reactions and resistance to Brown and then the bus boycotts that were in large part inspired by Brown.
2. 1960-1961, with the student-led sit-ins and Freedom rides.
3. 1962-1966, the community-organizing, mass-movement direct-action period, including Albany, voter-registration, Birmingham, March on Washington, St. Augustine, Freedom Summer, Civil Rights Act, Selma, March to Montgomery, Voting Rights Act, and ending with the Meredith March and Grenada Movement.
4. 1966-1968 (or later), political organizing & elections, Poor People's Campaign, King assassination, and so on. I've always considered the Black Power Movement to be an aspect of the larger Civil Rights Movement (though I recognize that many disagree with that) so that would also be in this period.
But, as I said, my preference would be to leave it as a single long article. Brucehartford ( talk) 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a minor note that the category related to this main article had not been added to Category:Movements for civil rights, only the LBJ-era subcat. I've fixed that. But there may be earlier African American movements that need to be added. I raise this here only because there's more eyeballs on this talk page. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why we capitalize "Civil Rights Movement" in this article? Data from books ( [1], [2], [3]) suggests that this is not necessary. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Lacking any other input, we should really have all these articles at lowercase, per MOS:CAPS. Randy wants to make this harder, since he just moved a bunch of others back to uppercase. Nobody here seems to care, but maybe I'll let it rest for a week and see. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I find Randy's argument for capitalizing "Civil Rights Movement" for the same reason we captalize "Civil War" and "French Revolution" to be quite persuasive. Therefore, I support keeping the capitalization as it is. Brucehartford ( talk) 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I see African-American civil rights movement (1896–1954) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Where is the article for " African-American Civil Rights Movement (1968-Present)"? Did it end in 1968? If not, is it not considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? If not, where is it? Perhaps it is under a different name, although that would lose the continuity of the preceding two historical articles. Tks. Benefac ( talk) 03:24, 17 December 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
http://stubbornfacts.us/random/almost_forgotten_history • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a sic template in what is currently reference 30 marking a possible transcription error. The linked reference itself contains the transcription error, rather than it being the error of an editor here. Thus, please change the template to {{sic}}
rather than {{sic|?}}
.
Additionally, the other sic in the reference should preferably use the template rather than just writing "[sic]". 786b6364 ( talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Done The
{{sic|?}}}
should be a {{sic}}}
because {{sic|?}}}
is used to indicate uncertainty of whether the error is in the text being quoted or is in a quote within that text. Errors by editors here are simply corrected. Since I am in the section, I'll also change the other "[sic]" to a template. Thanks,
Celestra (
talk)
18:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I would have just done it myself, but I've not been autoconfirmed yet. 786b6364 ( talk) 00:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
A note attached to the External Links section suggests that new links first be proposed and discussed here before being added. I'd like to propose two additional links:
Articles by Civil Rights Movement Participants Online collection of articles written by participants ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans.
Documents from the Civil Rights Movement Online collection of original documents ~ Civil Rights Movement Veterans.
Brucehartford ( talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The article title contains "1955–1968", but the first event is in 1954, and furthermore 1965–1968 aren't really described, and when they are, it's not in connection with "civil rights" (defined in the lead as opposed to economic justice, black power, or whatever). It might be reasonable to consider a name change that removes the years, since these make linking complicated and make it kind of hard to even read the title of the page. (Also: African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) is all well and good, but it doesn't seem to describe an autonomous "movement"; it might be more reasonably titled "African-American Civil Rights (1896–1954)" or "Prehistory of the African-American Civil Rights Movement".) (Oh, and there's also some stuff from after 1970 in the prisons section...)
Also, race riots? Really? IMO this is a totally loaded term, especially if you believe that many of the people involved were motivated by, idk, poverty, and not a specifically racial hatred? Does the involvement of mostly dark-skinned people automatically make them race riots? Unless we are willing to call all-white stuff "race" stuff, too? This is a race riot. (I'm also going to mention this over on the talk page at List of ethnic riots, which bizarrely includes the Stonewall riots as well as the events listed here. groupuscule ( talk) 08:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Brucehartford ( talk) 03:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Now discovering that there is a whole scholarly movement towards a "long civil rights movement" perspective, precisely to connect and contextualize the 1960s actions with earlier struggles. The initiator of the concept (or at least of this terminology) is Jacquelyn Dowd Hall at UNC. Here's an article that lays out the theory.
Excerpt:
It took such effort because another force also rose from the caldron of the Great Depression and crested in the 1940s: a powerful social movement sparked by the alchemy of laborites, civil rights activists, progressive New Dealers, and black and white radicals, some of whom were associated with the Communist party. Robert Korstad calls it “civil rights unionism,” Martha Biondi the “Black Popular Front”; both terms signal the movement's commitment to building coalitions, the expansiveness of its social democratic vision, and the importance of its black radical and laborite leadership. A national movement with a vital southern wing, civil rights unionism was not just a precursor of the modern civil rights movement. It was its decisive first phase.
It also argues that the current narrative was cultivated very carefully by right-wingers in the '70s and '80s who wanted to use the "civil rights movement" to justify economic injustice with formal equality.
Reworking that narrative for their own purposes, these new “color-blind conservatives” ignored the complexity and dynamism of the movement, its growing focus on structural inequality, and its “radical reconstruction” goals. Instead, they insisted that color blindness—defined as the elimination of racial classifications and the establishment of formal equality before the law—was the movement's singular objective, the principle for which King and the Brown decision, in particular, stood.
On why they succeeded:
Germinated in well-funded right-wing think tanks and broadcast to the general public, this racial narrative had wide appeal, in part because it conformed to white, middle-class interests and flattered national vanities and in part because it resonated with ideals of individual effort and merit that are widely shared. The American creed of free-market individualism, in combination with the ideological victories of the movement (which ensured that white supremacy must “hide its face”), made the rhetoric of color blindness central to the “war of ideas” initiated by the New Right in the 1970s.
So I'm not saying we need to fixate on this one scholar's narrative or necessarily adopt her timeline. But I have seen, elsewhere, date ranges like 1942 to 1970 described as "mass direct action". (E.g., " The US Civil Rights Movement (1942-1968)".) This would definitely be a reasonable way to differentiate the midcentury American civil rights struggle from other efforts to create legal change. Reasons for moving the start date to 1942:
So I think that's a good option. I'd be interested to hear cases for others or for status quo. There's definitely no one right way to do this. groupuscule ( talk) 03:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this goes on a bit too much about the Kennedys and recommend deleting the following:
"In 1966, Robert Kennedy undertook a tour of South Africa in which he championed the cause of the anti-apartheid movement. His tour gained international praise at a time when few politicians dared to entangle themselves in the politics of South Africa. Kennedy spoke out against the oppression of the native population. He was welcomed by the black population as though a visiting head of state. In an interview with LOOK Magazine he said:
At the University of Natal in Durban, I was told the church to which most of the white population belongs teaches apartheid as a moral necessity. A questioner declared that few churches allow black Africans to pray with the white because the Bible says that is the way it should be, because God created Negroes to serve. "But suppose God is black", I replied. "What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?" There was no answer. Only silence.—Robert Kennedy , LOOK Magazine[74]" To me, these two paragraphs belong in his article, not here. Parkwells ( talk) 20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
African-American Civil Rights Movement | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Four leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. From left: Bayard Rustin, Andrew Young, (N.Y. Cong.William Ryan), James Farmer, and John Lewis in 1965. | ||||
Date | 1955-1968 | |||
Location |
United States, especially the
South | |||
Goals | End of racial segregation | |||
Methods | civil resistance, civil disobedience | |||
Resulted in | Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |||
Parties | ||||
| ||||
Lead figures | ||||
President of the United States
George Wallace |
Thoughts? -- Երևանցի talk 02:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In the Little Rock section, someone added "Little Rock, Arkansas, was in a relatively progressive Southern state." I deleted the reference to Arkansas being "relatively progressive." Someone then reverted my change. This isn't important enough for me to engage in a round revert/counter-revert but I think it's a misuse of language to apply the adjective "progressive" when it's a case of Arkansas not being quite as bad as Mississippi or Alabama. At the time in question, Arkansas maintained a thoroughly segregated school system, enforced Jim Crow segregation of public facilities throughout the state, and systematically denied blacks the right to vote. The fact that segregation in Arkasas was not enforced as violently as it was in some other southern states did not make Arkansas "progressive" or even "relatively progressive." It made Arkansas less bad, but that's not the same as "progressive." Brucehartford ( talk) 18:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The subtitle of this article currently refers to "(1955-1968)", yet the actual years covered clearly go back to 1954 (the year of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision). Indeed, we could say coverage goes back to 1951, the year the first of the Brown v. Board lawsuits were filed. The Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement History and Timeline lists additional reasons for marking 1951 as the beginning of the modern movement. I propose that the title be amended either to 1951 or 1954. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 23:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've purposely kept away from doing much editing on the main article, or even reading it. But one of the things that stands out on the page - and this was pointed out to me a year or more ago - is that there is no section on the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement. I think the Open Housing Movement is considered a major movement by the main civil rights historians, and was one of SCLC's successful 1960s movements. For it was a successful movement, although not considered a success by some (and I don't understand how they've come to that conclusion). The law which emerged as a result of it - a law introduced after Dr. King's death to assure passage - became the last great Civil Rights Act of the 1960s. It probably should have a section of its own, or at least a footnote and a link, or maybe an entry in the 'See also' section. I won't write it, but might do some editing if it appears. It would make the page longer though (see above discussion about excess page length, which brought me to the page again). Randy Kryn 4:14 14 October, 2014 (UTC)
I came to this article because I saw that it needed some reformatting of very long sections, giving more columns and less length to the page. My edits took a very long time to load so I took the time to read parts of it. I (as a non-expert reader who has only general knowledge of the subject) saw that it remains sketchy in areas but it is overly long taken as a whole. I would recommend that the regular authors give consideration to splitting it into two or more smaller articles to facilitate adding more vital information on the subject without making an article which is so long that it jams computers which depend on dial-up or slow DSL. So I am going to tag it as needing a split. Trilobitealive ( talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave it as a single article based on the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. At least until people start to complain about the download time. That said, if it's going to be broken into sections, it seems to me that there are four (rather than two) clear historic sub-periods:
1. 1951-1959, with the events leading up to Brown v. Board of Education, the reactions and resistance to Brown and then the bus boycotts that were in large part inspired by Brown.
2. 1960-1961, with the student-led sit-ins and Freedom rides.
3. 1962-1966, the community-organizing, mass-movement direct-action period, including Albany, voter-registration, Birmingham, March on Washington, St. Augustine, Freedom Summer, Civil Rights Act, Selma, March to Montgomery, Voting Rights Act, and ending with the Meredith March and Grenada Movement.
4. 1966-1968 (or later), political organizing & elections, Poor People's Campaign, King assassination, and so on. I've always considered the Black Power Movement to be an aspect of the larger Civil Rights Movement (though I recognize that many disagree with that) so that would also be in this period.
But, as I said, my preference would be to leave it as a single long article. Brucehartford ( talk) 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a minor note that the category related to this main article had not been added to Category:Movements for civil rights, only the LBJ-era subcat. I've fixed that. But there may be earlier African American movements that need to be added. I raise this here only because there's more eyeballs on this talk page. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why we capitalize "Civil Rights Movement" in this article? Data from books ( [1], [2], [3]) suggests that this is not necessary. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Lacking any other input, we should really have all these articles at lowercase, per MOS:CAPS. Randy wants to make this harder, since he just moved a bunch of others back to uppercase. Nobody here seems to care, but maybe I'll let it rest for a week and see. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I find Randy's argument for capitalizing "Civil Rights Movement" for the same reason we captalize "Civil War" and "French Revolution" to be quite persuasive. Therefore, I support keeping the capitalization as it is. Brucehartford ( talk) 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I see African-American civil rights movement (1896–1954) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Where is the article for " African-American Civil Rights Movement (1968-Present)"? Did it end in 1968? If not, is it not considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? If not, where is it? Perhaps it is under a different name, although that would lose the continuity of the preceding two historical articles. Tks. Benefac ( talk) 03:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)