This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Civil rights movements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I was really happy to see that a section on the Chicano Movement was included in the section on civil rights in the U.S., it doesn't say anything about civil rights leader Cesar E. Chavez and the UFW farmworkers' movement (which was more than a labor movement--it was a fight for civil rights). I also noticed that this article is in need of a write up on the Young Lords, who set up a lot of programs and fought for civil rights primarily in New York City and Chicago. I hope that someone can do this faster than I'm able to. Thanks.
Revolition ( talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. There's a grammer error in this page. Under the section 'Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland' on the 5th line down at the far right of the page, it reads 'better housing and committed itself to end discrimination in employment'. The 'end' of that phrase should be changed to 'ending' Thanks Raalu ( talk) 09:35, 30 April 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 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There is also a spelling error in the Quiet Revolution section. I am guessing this page is being scuttled on purpose. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.97.45.198 (
talk) 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement that loyalist were aided by RUC is completely untrue . No mention is made of the reality that more loyalist were arrested than republicans. More loyalist were Interned also than republicans. Lastly housing conditions and employment issues effected both working class communities not just Catholics . Lastly NO mention is made of IRA murder squads to genocidely remove irish Protestants from border areas. IRA have been bombing and killing Irishmen since 1920 they and their supporters remain the sworn enemies of Northern Ireland and have alongside the Dublin government never recognised the democratic choice of Irishmen to remain in UK . Such articles need o be accurate and fair otherwise they can escalate tensions by feeding false propaganda in favour of one side of a civil conflict . Most of his article clearly sides and promotes IRA terrorist agenda 176.252.102.203 ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Current sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Fixed sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination *against* African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Gunfulker (
talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed a long time ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in this deletion discussion for the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. Diego ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The references to Quebec's Quiet Revolution and October Crisis are well made, but off-topic, as they do not refer to segregated groups fighting for equality (essence of the civil rights movement). As for Quebec's sovereign movement, it is literally the opposite of a civil rights movement, for it seeks to separate the Quebecois from the Canadian as distinct citizens whereas a civil rights movement would try to integrate them better. I suggest the removal of the whole Canadian section from this article. Xachar ( talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)This article seems to be about Global movements for civil rights or Movements for civil rights. A review of the What links here link will display numerous articles that are meant to link to the American movement. The title of this article, as denoted in scholarly publications and popular understanding, is associated with the Civil Rights Movement that occurred in the southern region of the United States. Also, I am not able to find secondary sources that use the title of this article to denote the collection of movements reflected in the article. Please post any sources that support this title. Lastly, the notes section for this article provides no link to any academic or newspaper sources that support the title of this article. Any thoughts on this?
-- Mitchumch ( talk) 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. The discussion as a whole seems to produce somewhat more heat than light, and I'm sure I'll catch hell from someone no matter how the close turns out, but the bottom line issues are:
Movements for civil rights →
Civil rights movements – Present article name fails
WP:NC, as it is not common, concise or particularly recognizable, and is not a phrase many would search for. It was arrived at in a unilateral move that was not advertised via RM (see immediately above on this article's talk page), to usurp the titles
Civil Rights Movement and
Civil rights movement, and redirect them to
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), which may raise
WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently. That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of
Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'm not asking that the move be reverted to status quo ante. Rather, the subject of this article is intrinsically plural in a way that satisfies
WP:NCPLURAL (and its present name is plural, so that aspect of the name wouldn't change). It's a
WP:CONCEPTDAB – essentially an expanded-prose list article in form. Using the title
Civil rights movements (lower case per
WP:NCCAPS) seems most appropriate. The editor who moved it
made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]" to the awkward and unsourced poorly sourced and uncommon "movement[s] for civil rights" in the text, which should be put back the way they were. This article's existence, at a proper title, would probably also obviate any need for a
Civil rights movement (disambiguation) page, as was under some discussion at
Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); 3) in USA: " mobilised in opposition to the Vietnam War, supported civil rights movements such as women's and gay liberation, and raised awareness of environmental" Judith Bara & Mark Pennington (2009).
Comparative Politics. SAGE. p. 277.; 4) " explores the African American and Hispanic civil rights movements within a comparative framework." Debra A. Reid (2009).
Seeking Inalienable Rights: Texans and Their Quests for Justice. Texas A&M UP. p. 169.; 5) "Civil rights movements of blacks and Catholics" Frank Wright (1988).
Northern Ireland: A Comparative Analysis. p. 164.; 6) Goodwin, Jeff, and Steven Pfaff. "Emotion work in high-risk social movements: Managing fear in the US and East German civil rights movements." in Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (2001): 282-302; 7) google books uses the category " Civil rights movements—United States—History—2oth century."
Rjensen (
talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Mike Cline, would you mind explaining why you've decided to relist the discussion, please? Thank you! Red Slash 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
'First, there is no need for a disambiguation page. The article "Movements for civil rights" is not a disambiguation page'. I am not arguing for such a DAB page nor is anyone else here, but against it. No one made the argument that this page is a DAB page. So, two straw men back to back. 2)
'to address the phrase "which should be put back the way they were." First, that would make some of the sentences a false claim. The German student movement was not a civil rights movement.'No one made an argument to replace "German student movement" with anything (e.g. "German student civil rights movement"), but rather to revert your changing, without consensus, of the common phrase "civil rights movement" (or its plural) to "movement for civil rights" (or its plural). Patent, obvious straw man. I don't have time to waste on any further deconstruction of this nonsense. Most of what isn't structurally fallacious is simply misapplied and misunderstood partial quotations of policy and guildeine pages out of context and without any understanding of why they relate to other policypages and processes and actual practice. It's as if you're unaware that WP:CONSENSUS policy exists, or that WP:RM#Undiscussed moves exists. Your selective blindness to WP procedure that doesn't agree with you renders much of your "analysis" confused, and pointless noise in the sense of signal-to-noise ratio. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just refactored all of this mess into the Discussion section where it should have been all along. You quote at such length that this transition won't even impede understanding in any way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
'Where in Wikipedia does it state that "Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English" is a satisfactory rational to base an article move? I do not see this rational listed in WP:MOVE or " Wikipedia:Moving a page."'" I think you mean "rationale". Anyway, WP doesn't work this way. RM discussions are WP:CONSENSUS discussions that can weigh whatever factors the participants consider relevant. There is no checklist of considerations that must be considered, nor blacklist of those which cannot. Even if there were, it would absolutely be a valid point that any of a number of guides (probably all of them) to English language style and usage indicate that good writing uses "modifier noun" order whenever practical, vs. "noun preposition modifier"). We rely on such points in many RM discussions, and the WP:MOS mostly consists of points drawn from such sources. The speech of Yoda, to be avoiding we are. As in your much longer attempts at rebuttal above, most of rest of your arguments are of the straw man type. For example, no one has proposed that any source
'only refers to the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s.", and demanding a source for this is a red herring and a hand wave. Most sources not dealing with the civil rights movement you focus on (African-American, 1950s-60s) will, rather, deal with specific other civil rights movements. The quoted phrase "a worldwide series of political movements...[etc]" is Wikipedia's own summary for the subject of its own article, not an externally published statement about the world. You are trying invalidly to use WP as a reliable source for the definition of "civil rights movements" (or "movements for civil rights"), and confusing the container for its contents, the second such Korzybskian error of "mistaking the map for the territory, the menu for the meaL" that I've caught you in, without even really looking. The WP article is a WP:CONCEPTDAB, an extended list article of topics that qualify under the label we've agreed to file them under. Our internal organization of material is a matter of WP editorial consensus about content presentation for our readership, and is not dependent upon, much less determinative of, what external sources are doing and saying for their own target audiences. Furthermore, throughout these excessively lengthy responses, you're misapplying WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS, which apply to article content, as if they constrained talk page discussions. They do not, and posting numerous cranky demands for sources of the obvious is not going actually force anyone to do your home work for you. Getting back to procedural matters: You unilaterally moved the article without consensus, and if I want to I can take it to the main RM page to be speedily reverted back to the original name, no discussion required. Instead, I've done you (well, the article and all it's editors and readers) the courtesy of opening a regular RM discussion to determine what the best name of the RM probably will be. It's unhelpful for you to be excessively combative toward me for this. I'm not going to address any more of your logorrhea, because it's all built on similar house-of-cards false logic. I can easily and more cogently re-refute every line of your attempted refutations in all three of these discussions, but no one's going to read it or care, since even skimming what you've written reveals the misinterpretations and fallacies in it. Arguing over the minutiae of why your interpretation of what we're saying isn't correct is not why I'm on Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Civil rights and civil liberties appear to be closely related terms. Many of the same concepts are linked from the lead sections of each article, to the point where the distinction between each topic is not clear to me. Are these content forks? Each references the United States Bill of Rights as the instrument which protects these rights/liberties.
However, adding the everyday word "movement" causes "civil rights" to take on a much more specific meaning. The civil rights movement is about the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, not the movement to pass the 1789 Bill of Rights. I believe that the naming of the 1950s–60s movement was a choice of emphasis made by the movement's leadership. The women's rights movement, gay rights movement, and Indian rights movement ( American Indian Movement) did not so explicitly define themselves as Civil Rights movements. Not until the late 1960s did we see a Black rights movement – actually it was a Black Power movement. The primary topic for Civil Rights Movement is African-American Civil Rights Movement, and thus, to have an undisambiguated article titled "civil rights movements" implies that the article is about African-American civil rights movements – especially since we have multiple articles on these movements which span several generations and over a century on the calendar. See Civil Rights Act for all the legislation which resulted from these movements which lasted for over 100 years.
This article clearly uses the term "civil rights" in the broader sense of the "Bill of Rights". I think there may indeed be some synthesis here, but sources such as this show that there are sources who have compared different movements. However, as their abstract says, "Due to the lack of recognition for the solidarity between movements for civil rights, little formal scholarship acknowledging the relationship between African Americans and Nationalists in Northern Ireland exists." We have an awkwardly constructed article here. Perhaps it's fitting that it has an "awkward sounding" title, and improving the organization and sourcing of the content might just point the way towards finding a less awkward title. Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under gender equality section, final sentence, sexuality is listed twice. Remove one instance. Formatting of the page is inconsistent. Most movements are listed by nationality (civil rights in northern Ireland, Canada's quiet movement, etc.) then it lists LGBT movements, and then goes back to listing by nation. This can be remedied by reorganizing the page by topic then by nation (race rights [in northern Ireland, in Canada, in Russia,] LGBT rights [in germany, USA, Austrailia, New Zealand] ) This would also allow the inclusion of other issues beyond race and LGBT. The current article appears to imply that these are the only areas where civil rights are at issue. Nostagar ( talk) 00:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template) for the rest.
Stick to sources!
Paine 02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There are currently some remaining groups of people that are not given equal rights under the law - for example, people under 18, unauthorized migrants, and the homeless. The article should focus on future liberation or potential liberation movements, not simply past ones, or else there should be another article called "Groups Not Having Equal Rights" or the like. 129.2.106.82 ( talk) 02:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Nightvid
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I would like to make an addition to the introduction of this page. After the following: "The process has been long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these movements did not, or have yet to, fully achieve their goals, although the efforts of these movements have led to improvements in the legal rights of some previously oppressed groups of people, in some places", I would like to include information on the philosophical origin of Civil Right Movements. My edit is as a follows: " Many civil rights movements and their ideologies have stemmed from philosophical thought such as the mid-17th Century philosopher John Locke and his theory of a Lockean Right. Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society. As a result of his writings [1], society began to question the intentions of their government and demanded a greater say in their entitlements. Such thought has hence became the backbone for many of the civil rights movements occurring today. JustChillOut ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society"is sourced. You've provided a source to Locke's writing itself but does that confirm the claim that he was a major inspiration for these sorts of rebellions? Without a source, we won't really be able to add this since it's pretty contentious. See WP:RS and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIMARY. CityOf Silver 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Chicano to Chicanx 131.252.140.111 ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a particularly interesting topic that has not been included in this article. It certainly warrants attention and discussion. Major figures of the civil rights movement in the US including Martin Luther King, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson and Malcolm X were directly involved in anti-colonial movements in Africa. Liberation leaders in Africa such as Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto from Kenya were in active correspondence with these figures. Tom Mboya gave a speech at a civil rights rally in DC, sharing the podium with Martin Luther King [1]. Their collaboration bore fruits for example in the Kennedy Airlift scholarship program and the first Kenyan constitution. Thurgood Marshall was instrumental in drafting the first constitution. Tom Shachtman discusses this in his book Airlift to America. How Barack Obama, Sr., John F. Kennedy, Tom Mboya, and 800 East African Students Changed Their World and Ours. Barack Obama's father got his scholarship to study in the Hawaii because of these collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, mainstream historians discuss these two pivotal movements in the 1950s-60s as though they were unrelated. The writings and speeches of these key figures suggest otherwise. Surely this is worth inclusion. Cheers! Lilac breasted roller ( talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
References
pls 2409:40E6:24:C2ED:D829:C3E0:F8DF:ED46 ( talk) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Civil rights movements article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While I was really happy to see that a section on the Chicano Movement was included in the section on civil rights in the U.S., it doesn't say anything about civil rights leader Cesar E. Chavez and the UFW farmworkers' movement (which was more than a labor movement--it was a fight for civil rights). I also noticed that this article is in need of a write up on the Young Lords, who set up a lot of programs and fought for civil rights primarily in New York City and Chicago. I hope that someone can do this faster than I'm able to. Thanks.
Revolition ( talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. There's a grammer error in this page. Under the section 'Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland' on the 5th line down at the far right of the page, it reads 'better housing and committed itself to end discrimination in employment'. The 'end' of that phrase should be changed to 'ending' Thanks Raalu ( talk) 09:35, 30 April 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 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
There is also a spelling error in the Quiet Revolution section. I am guessing this page is being scuttled on purpose. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.97.45.198 (
talk) 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement that loyalist were aided by RUC is completely untrue . No mention is made of the reality that more loyalist were arrested than republicans. More loyalist were Interned also than republicans. Lastly housing conditions and employment issues effected both working class communities not just Catholics . Lastly NO mention is made of IRA murder squads to genocidely remove irish Protestants from border areas. IRA have been bombing and killing Irishmen since 1920 they and their supporters remain the sworn enemies of Northern Ireland and have alongside the Dublin government never recognised the democratic choice of Irishmen to remain in UK . Such articles need o be accurate and fair otherwise they can escalate tensions by feeding false propaganda in favour of one side of a civil conflict . Most of his article clearly sides and promotes IRA terrorist agenda 176.252.102.203 ( talk) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Current sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Fixed sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination *against* African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Gunfulker (
talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed a long time ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be interested in this deletion discussion for the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. Diego ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The references to Quebec's Quiet Revolution and October Crisis are well made, but off-topic, as they do not refer to segregated groups fighting for equality (essence of the civil rights movement). As for Quebec's sovereign movement, it is literally the opposite of a civil rights movement, for it seeks to separate the Quebecois from the Canadian as distinct citizens whereas a civil rights movement would try to integrate them better. I suggest the removal of the whole Canadian section from this article. Xachar ( talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)This article seems to be about Global movements for civil rights or Movements for civil rights. A review of the What links here link will display numerous articles that are meant to link to the American movement. The title of this article, as denoted in scholarly publications and popular understanding, is associated with the Civil Rights Movement that occurred in the southern region of the United States. Also, I am not able to find secondary sources that use the title of this article to denote the collection of movements reflected in the article. Please post any sources that support this title. Lastly, the notes section for this article provides no link to any academic or newspaper sources that support the title of this article. Any thoughts on this?
-- Mitchumch ( talk) 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved as proposed. The discussion as a whole seems to produce somewhat more heat than light, and I'm sure I'll catch hell from someone no matter how the close turns out, but the bottom line issues are:
Movements for civil rights →
Civil rights movements – Present article name fails
WP:NC, as it is not common, concise or particularly recognizable, and is not a phrase many would search for. It was arrived at in a unilateral move that was not advertised via RM (see immediately above on this article's talk page), to usurp the titles
Civil Rights Movement and
Civil rights movement, and redirect them to
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), which may raise
WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently. That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of
Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'm not asking that the move be reverted to status quo ante. Rather, the subject of this article is intrinsically plural in a way that satisfies
WP:NCPLURAL (and its present name is plural, so that aspect of the name wouldn't change). It's a
WP:CONCEPTDAB – essentially an expanded-prose list article in form. Using the title
Civil rights movements (lower case per
WP:NCCAPS) seems most appropriate. The editor who moved it
made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]" to the awkward and unsourced poorly sourced and uncommon "movement[s] for civil rights" in the text, which should be put back the way they were. This article's existence, at a proper title, would probably also obviate any need for a
Civil rights movement (disambiguation) page, as was under some discussion at
Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).relisted --
Mike Cline (
talk) 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC) —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); 3) in USA: " mobilised in opposition to the Vietnam War, supported civil rights movements such as women's and gay liberation, and raised awareness of environmental" Judith Bara & Mark Pennington (2009).
Comparative Politics. SAGE. p. 277.; 4) " explores the African American and Hispanic civil rights movements within a comparative framework." Debra A. Reid (2009).
Seeking Inalienable Rights: Texans and Their Quests for Justice. Texas A&M UP. p. 169.; 5) "Civil rights movements of blacks and Catholics" Frank Wright (1988).
Northern Ireland: A Comparative Analysis. p. 164.; 6) Goodwin, Jeff, and Steven Pfaff. "Emotion work in high-risk social movements: Managing fear in the US and East German civil rights movements." in Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (2001): 282-302; 7) google books uses the category " Civil rights movements—United States—History—2oth century."
Rjensen (
talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Mike Cline, would you mind explaining why you've decided to relist the discussion, please? Thank you! Red Slash 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
'First, there is no need for a disambiguation page. The article "Movements for civil rights" is not a disambiguation page'. I am not arguing for such a DAB page nor is anyone else here, but against it. No one made the argument that this page is a DAB page. So, two straw men back to back. 2)
'to address the phrase "which should be put back the way they were." First, that would make some of the sentences a false claim. The German student movement was not a civil rights movement.'No one made an argument to replace "German student movement" with anything (e.g. "German student civil rights movement"), but rather to revert your changing, without consensus, of the common phrase "civil rights movement" (or its plural) to "movement for civil rights" (or its plural). Patent, obvious straw man. I don't have time to waste on any further deconstruction of this nonsense. Most of what isn't structurally fallacious is simply misapplied and misunderstood partial quotations of policy and guildeine pages out of context and without any understanding of why they relate to other policypages and processes and actual practice. It's as if you're unaware that WP:CONSENSUS policy exists, or that WP:RM#Undiscussed moves exists. Your selective blindness to WP procedure that doesn't agree with you renders much of your "analysis" confused, and pointless noise in the sense of signal-to-noise ratio. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've just refactored all of this mess into the Discussion section where it should have been all along. You quote at such length that this transition won't even impede understanding in any way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
'Where in Wikipedia does it state that "Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English" is a satisfactory rational to base an article move? I do not see this rational listed in WP:MOVE or " Wikipedia:Moving a page."'" I think you mean "rationale". Anyway, WP doesn't work this way. RM discussions are WP:CONSENSUS discussions that can weigh whatever factors the participants consider relevant. There is no checklist of considerations that must be considered, nor blacklist of those which cannot. Even if there were, it would absolutely be a valid point that any of a number of guides (probably all of them) to English language style and usage indicate that good writing uses "modifier noun" order whenever practical, vs. "noun preposition modifier"). We rely on such points in many RM discussions, and the WP:MOS mostly consists of points drawn from such sources. The speech of Yoda, to be avoiding we are. As in your much longer attempts at rebuttal above, most of rest of your arguments are of the straw man type. For example, no one has proposed that any source
'only refers to the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s.", and demanding a source for this is a red herring and a hand wave. Most sources not dealing with the civil rights movement you focus on (African-American, 1950s-60s) will, rather, deal with specific other civil rights movements. The quoted phrase "a worldwide series of political movements...[etc]" is Wikipedia's own summary for the subject of its own article, not an externally published statement about the world. You are trying invalidly to use WP as a reliable source for the definition of "civil rights movements" (or "movements for civil rights"), and confusing the container for its contents, the second such Korzybskian error of "mistaking the map for the territory, the menu for the meaL" that I've caught you in, without even really looking. The WP article is a WP:CONCEPTDAB, an extended list article of topics that qualify under the label we've agreed to file them under. Our internal organization of material is a matter of WP editorial consensus about content presentation for our readership, and is not dependent upon, much less determinative of, what external sources are doing and saying for their own target audiences. Furthermore, throughout these excessively lengthy responses, you're misapplying WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS, which apply to article content, as if they constrained talk page discussions. They do not, and posting numerous cranky demands for sources of the obvious is not going actually force anyone to do your home work for you. Getting back to procedural matters: You unilaterally moved the article without consensus, and if I want to I can take it to the main RM page to be speedily reverted back to the original name, no discussion required. Instead, I've done you (well, the article and all it's editors and readers) the courtesy of opening a regular RM discussion to determine what the best name of the RM probably will be. It's unhelpful for you to be excessively combative toward me for this. I'm not going to address any more of your logorrhea, because it's all built on similar house-of-cards false logic. I can easily and more cogently re-refute every line of your attempted refutations in all three of these discussions, but no one's going to read it or care, since even skimming what you've written reveals the misinterpretations and fallacies in it. Arguing over the minutiae of why your interpretation of what we're saying isn't correct is not why I'm on Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Civil rights and civil liberties appear to be closely related terms. Many of the same concepts are linked from the lead sections of each article, to the point where the distinction between each topic is not clear to me. Are these content forks? Each references the United States Bill of Rights as the instrument which protects these rights/liberties.
However, adding the everyday word "movement" causes "civil rights" to take on a much more specific meaning. The civil rights movement is about the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, not the movement to pass the 1789 Bill of Rights. I believe that the naming of the 1950s–60s movement was a choice of emphasis made by the movement's leadership. The women's rights movement, gay rights movement, and Indian rights movement ( American Indian Movement) did not so explicitly define themselves as Civil Rights movements. Not until the late 1960s did we see a Black rights movement – actually it was a Black Power movement. The primary topic for Civil Rights Movement is African-American Civil Rights Movement, and thus, to have an undisambiguated article titled "civil rights movements" implies that the article is about African-American civil rights movements – especially since we have multiple articles on these movements which span several generations and over a century on the calendar. See Civil Rights Act for all the legislation which resulted from these movements which lasted for over 100 years.
This article clearly uses the term "civil rights" in the broader sense of the "Bill of Rights". I think there may indeed be some synthesis here, but sources such as this show that there are sources who have compared different movements. However, as their abstract says, "Due to the lack of recognition for the solidarity between movements for civil rights, little formal scholarship acknowledging the relationship between African Americans and Nationalists in Northern Ireland exists." We have an awkwardly constructed article here. Perhaps it's fitting that it has an "awkward sounding" title, and improving the organization and sourcing of the content might just point the way towards finding a less awkward title. Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under gender equality section, final sentence, sexuality is listed twice. Remove one instance. Formatting of the page is inconsistent. Most movements are listed by nationality (civil rights in northern Ireland, Canada's quiet movement, etc.) then it lists LGBT movements, and then goes back to listing by nation. This can be remedied by reorganizing the page by topic then by nation (race rights [in northern Ireland, in Canada, in Russia,] LGBT rights [in germany, USA, Austrailia, New Zealand] ) This would also allow the inclusion of other issues beyond race and LGBT. The current article appears to imply that these are the only areas where civil rights are at issue. Nostagar ( talk) 00:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template) for the rest.
Stick to sources!
Paine 02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
There are currently some remaining groups of people that are not given equal rights under the law - for example, people under 18, unauthorized migrants, and the homeless. The article should focus on future liberation or potential liberation movements, not simply past ones, or else there should be another article called "Groups Not Having Equal Rights" or the like. 129.2.106.82 ( talk) 02:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Nightvid
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi I would like to make an addition to the introduction of this page. After the following: "The process has been long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these movements did not, or have yet to, fully achieve their goals, although the efforts of these movements have led to improvements in the legal rights of some previously oppressed groups of people, in some places", I would like to include information on the philosophical origin of Civil Right Movements. My edit is as a follows: " Many civil rights movements and their ideologies have stemmed from philosophical thought such as the mid-17th Century philosopher John Locke and his theory of a Lockean Right. Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society. As a result of his writings [1], society began to question the intentions of their government and demanded a greater say in their entitlements. Such thought has hence became the backbone for many of the civil rights movements occurring today. JustChillOut ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society"is sourced. You've provided a source to Locke's writing itself but does that confirm the claim that he was a major inspiration for these sorts of rebellions? Without a source, we won't really be able to add this since it's pretty contentious. See WP:RS and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIMARY. CityOf Silver 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Chicano to Chicanx 131.252.140.111 ( talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a particularly interesting topic that has not been included in this article. It certainly warrants attention and discussion. Major figures of the civil rights movement in the US including Martin Luther King, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson and Malcolm X were directly involved in anti-colonial movements in Africa. Liberation leaders in Africa such as Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto from Kenya were in active correspondence with these figures. Tom Mboya gave a speech at a civil rights rally in DC, sharing the podium with Martin Luther King [1]. Their collaboration bore fruits for example in the Kennedy Airlift scholarship program and the first Kenyan constitution. Thurgood Marshall was instrumental in drafting the first constitution. Tom Shachtman discusses this in his book Airlift to America. How Barack Obama, Sr., John F. Kennedy, Tom Mboya, and 800 East African Students Changed Their World and Ours. Barack Obama's father got his scholarship to study in the Hawaii because of these collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, mainstream historians discuss these two pivotal movements in the 1950s-60s as though they were unrelated. The writings and speeches of these key figures suggest otherwise. Surely this is worth inclusion. Cheers! Lilac breasted roller ( talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
References
pls 2409:40E6:24:C2ED:D829:C3E0:F8DF:ED46 ( talk) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)