User talk:Brucehartford

Welcome!

Hello, Brucehartford, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Open Documentary Project

Dear Bruce,

I am really appreciated for your contribution for wikipedia. First let me introduce myself, My name is Pachinee, I am a member of a documentary film project. We were pleased to announce the launch of "then you win" project (http://thenyouwin.yooook.org), documentaries about non-violence movement in India.

Our inspiration is from the Gandhi philosophy: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

We aim to release it with the rights to copy, modify and distribute under Creative Commons licence, we need everybody’s help to achieve that goal. As I can see you are a honour contributor for wikipedia, so we believe that you might interested in our project.

Please have a look our website and trailer and let me know if you could help us.

Please feel free to contact me anytime if you have any questions. My email is aey@garbure.org.

Many thanks and best regards,

Pachinee Buathong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijiko (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Greenwood, MS references :) Jwh335 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement Veterans

Mr. Hartford your contributions to WP are wonderful. However, I wanted to ask you how is Civil rights movement veterans notable? I can't find any independent information about the org., and it has no References. Regarding St. Augustine Movement, is crmvet.org a reliable source? The St. Augustine Movement is important and I wanted to contact you before tagging it. Lionelt (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. "Notable" is a value judgement affected by context. On a large societal scale, CRMVets is probably not "notable," but in the context of people interested in the Freedom Movement of the 1960s, it's quite notable. Our Civil Rights Movement Veterans website is used as a research source by everyone from grade-school children to book authors, academic researchers, and documentarians. In the context of a paper-based, traditional encyclopedia CRMVets would certainly not merit an entry, but in the context of an online encyclopedia with over 3 million articles in English including current TV shows, rock bands, and so on, an article on CRMVets does not seem out of place to me.

But let's be clear that CRMVets is not an academically neutral source. 98% of the material on CRMVets was written by people who were themselves participants and activists in the Freedom Movement. We were then, and still are, passionate supporters and defenders of the Civil Rights Movement. The purpose of CRMVets is to provide a venue were we can be advocates for our beliefs, where researchers and the public can find our views, in our voices, unfiltered and unmediated. Of course, when I write or edit articles on Wikipedia, I strive for a neutral point of view, but CRMVets is not intended to be neutral.

I based the CRMVet St. Augustine articles on input from people who participated in those events and also on research of previously published materials (books, articles, websites, documents, etc). If you click on the links at the end of the CRMVet articles you'll see references to other information sources. The CRMVet articles were also reviewed and amended by St. Augustine Movement veterans before being posted to the site. But make no mistake, the CRMVet articles are written from the point of view of those who participated in, and continue to support, the St. Augustine Movement.

Brucehartford (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding notability, with all due respect, the context we Wikipedians are interested in is described in WP:N: "Received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I applaud your work on crmvet.org. My question regarding CRMVets as used as a source for St. Aug doesn't pertain to neutrality, but that it is self-published. WP:RS: "Self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Lionelt (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the Wiki policy. But crmvet.org is published by Civil rights movement veterans (CRMV) which is an organization, not an individual. That's why I posted an article on CRMV, so that people had access to some background about it. Therefore, because it's an organization, I don't believe that citing crmvet.org as a source is in violation of the Wiki policy. If an organizational website is considered to be "self-published" and thus in violation of the Wiki policy, then that interpretation would have to be applied to ALL organizational and institutional websites that are cited as sources in a great number of Wiki articles. In essence, that would limit sources to traditional print-on-paper media and exclude a vast number of online resources, which I think would be a disservice to Wiki users and contrary to the basic idea of Wikipedia.

Brucehartford (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom

Thank you for your clarification on the talk page about Rustin's and Randolph's involvement. They both seem to have been the central organizational figures of the march, and as you point out it would be tough to say who was the main figure, or who's idea it was, because they both played different roles. I am not a scholar on the subject, nor was I around during the time of the march, so I feel that I am not knowledgeable enough to make a significant change to this article. It seems to me that the first paragraph in the organization section focuses solely on Randolph and Rustin gets credit in the next paragraph in a long winded awkward sentence awarding credit to a large number of other contributors. I think it would make more sense if the first paragraph talked about Randolph and Rustin and then the next paragraph focused on the other organizers. Alternatively the first paragraph could focus on Randolph, a small second paragraph could then be inserted about Rustin, followed by the next paragraph with the other contributors. The way it is written now, Rustin does not seem very prominent. What do you think? MATThematical (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I revised that section to clarify Rustin's role. Brucehartford (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent edit. You added a lot of valuable detailed information. It must have been quite an experience to be a participant in this march.MATThematical (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Regarding this could you let me know what the inaccuracy is? William Avery (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

nonviolence

I started Wikipedia:WikiProject Nonviolence. Hope you're still interested. Kingturtle (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recontextualizing MLK, Jr. as conservative

Hello. I may need your assistance, if you are willing, on the MLK Jr article. With the advent of Glenn Beck's crusade to recategorize MLK as a conservative hero, there are now editors with conservative POV, trying to mitigate King's legacy on the American left. I edited the article to state his role as a leader of the 20th Century Christian left, and his impact as an icon of modern American liberalism. Certain editors, obivously unfamiliar with his heavy social welfare activism, want to claim he is simply a classical liberal and eradicate all links to progressivism or modern liberalism. P.S. I'm intrigued by your About Me... very nice. Motorizer (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can be of assistance, I'd be happy to do so. You can contact me directly through the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website by sending email to the webmaster address. Brucehartford (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

your reversion to Greenwood, Mississippi

I left you a message at Talk:Greenwood, Mississippi#KKK flyer about your reversion, since that seems like the best place to discuss it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, it was my mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Brucehartford (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil rights movement veterans

The article Civil rights movement veterans has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced organization with very little apparent notability. Some Ghits, but most are about the general concept of veterans of the civil rights movement.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BDD (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Civil rights movement veterans creates and maintains the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website which is cited as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles. It is also widely used as an educational and research resource by teachers, documentarians, historians, and so forth. See, for example, the review by TeachingHistory.org. I believe that the Civil rights movement veterans article should remain because those who see the website references may want to know a bit more about the organization that maintains it. Brucehartford (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. I still think the organization doesn't meet notability guidelines, however, so I'll be taking it to AfD. There are plenty of reliable sources without their own articles, and that's fine. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civil rights movement veterans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil rights movement veterans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil rights movement veterans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement Veterans

Well, first of all, it should be capitalized in the articles name. Second of all, how did the page get deleted??? It is a very important organization in researching, recording, and store-housing the first-hand history of America's 1950 and 1960 Civil Rights Movement. Boggles the mind, if not the soul. Thirdly, good to meet you, I've never dropped by before although I knew you have edited here. I'd suggest another go at the article (I can't remember reading it when it was up), with the correct capitalization, and the alerting of people who edit the Civil Rights Movement pages who may have an interest in the vote. I certainly did not hear about it, or I would have "testified" on the question. Didn't the people discussing it look at the extent and quality of the website? Randy Kryn 1:23 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Randy, thanks for your kind words and support. You're right that the name should have been capitalized which was the way I wanted it, but for some reason I don't recall I wasn't allowed to do that. This all happened awhile back and I don't recall all the details, but my sense is that one guy decided the article wasn't worthy of Wikipedia's standards and he pushed through the removal over my objections. I suppose I could have waged a fiercer fight, but I decided my time was better spent on building and improving the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website rather than waging a protracted wiki fight. Again, thank you for your expression of support and I'm pleased that you find the website useful. Brucehartford (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe someone in the group can reconstitute the page and have another go at it, it is an important organization regarding Civil Rights Movement history and I really don't think there will be much of a fight about it (just keep a few of us who work on the Civil Rights Movement pages informed that the page is going up or if a problem occurs). I'd start the page myself but I'm not conversant with the extent of your groups members, activities, and research files/tapes, although I do know they are extensive. And I'm assuming you are going to the 50th events at Selma and Marion next year, and the only problem at it should be housing for everyone who'll be coming! Randy Kryn 12:09 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You got to the Selma march edit before me - of the IP who thought that the King of Spain was tragically shot in Marion in 1965. What has the world's education system come to? He was obviously mixing Juan Carlos up with Queen Beatrix! Randy Kryn 18:21 26 October, 2014 (UTC)

I just assumed it was the vandals's name, or that of someone he knows, rather than a nonsensical historic reference. But who knows, you might be right. As for the Selma 50th this coming March, I doubt I'll be there. All the Selma hotels are booked up with no rooms available. It looks like it's going to be overrun by notables and the high and mighty, and a real media zoo. I've attended the SNCC 50th, the Freedom Ride 50th, and the Freedom Summer 50th, but the Selma 50th looks like it's going to be more than I can handle. :) Brucehartford (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Decapitalization of the CRM names on Wikipedia

Hi. The same editor who tried for a change in the capitalization has put up an entirely new section of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) attempting this time to disregard his ongoing discussion and change five of our articles here to lower-case. It's beyond my understanding why he is doing this. As I suggested to him, just google or bing even a lower-case term such as 'civil rights movement' (let alone the more proper names) and it's obvious what the common name is. If you are interested please come back and vote once again. This is a very serious attack, imnho, on the legacy of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and I think it will need many people to comment to save it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:12 27 December, 2014 (UTC)

Selma invite

Both then and now (I hope you come to Selma in early March, would be nice to meet and talk). The invitation from Amelia Boynton and the others for SCLC to come to Selma was, according to James Bevel (and I guess it can't be used, original research, but the King Center must have records of it), a standing offer which SCLC didn't accept until late 1964. Bevel, Nash, and Orange were working their Alabama Project for voting rights from late-1963 onwards, and Bevel kept going to SCLC board meetings to tell them of their progress. I really should add the Abernathy quotes to the page, nobody else has as yet, and they do define Bevel's role quite well. The section right above this one, the 'discussion' is still going on (your past comment was in another section of the talk page, but I did list you on the 'oppose' list near the bottom because of that comment), and if you can join in it would be another voice in the wilderness (or at least from ages past). Randy Kryn 16:55 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

p.s. Have you been able to follow and check all the edits at Selma to Montgomery march? They've been coming fast and semi-furious these last few weeks. I hope someone knowledgeable has their eye on all of them. Thanks. Randy Kryn 17:22 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

Question

I would like your input on a proposed article list. The proposed article list is a list of campaigns that were part of the civil rights movement. The list would not be restricted to the southern United States. As an example for proposed list, see List of World War II battles. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Mitchumch (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could consult with you on that. The tricky problem will be to set a definition and parameters for "campaign." Brucehartford (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I agree with your assessment regarding the tricky problem. At this point, I am apprehensive about my capacity to determine the parameter and definition for "campaign." Compiling the list is a way for me to determine the proper scope of the article list. What are your thoughts?

I've also sought the input of User:Randy Kryn. He suggested I create a sandbox page with the proposed list article. I have done so at User:Mitchumch/sandbox. It is a skeletal outline for the proposal. The list is unimpressive in appearance. First, I have included articles currently listed in the Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement. Next, I will began to add the civil conflicts listed on the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website in the History & Timeline section. From there I will began reviewing scholarly/academic sources and add entries as I go along.

I welcome any entries you think should be included. Please feel free to add them. Mitchumch (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

After looking at your sandbox, the term "campaign" in your context is confusing to me because I wouldn't normally consider a speech by the president or a conference to be a "campaign." Perhaps "notable events" or "notable activities" related to the CRM would be more inclusive than "campaign."

As to the tricky question of which events/activities are significant enough to include in your list, perhaps rather than you trying to build a list of "significant" events/activities, instead you list events/activities that already have been chronicled or that in your opinion deserve an article. That's a subtle distinction, but it seems to me the advantage is that you don't have to decide what is, or isn't, significant, you let other people do that by whether or not they choose to create or suggest an article.

In looking at your sandbox list, I suggest you consider grouping components withing general articles rather than separate articles for each component. For example, you propose: St. Augustine movement: 1963–1964, St. Augustine school integration, St. Augustine sit-ins, Woolworths sit-in: July 18, 1963, St. Augustine night marches, St. Augustine selective buying campaign:, Ponce Motor Lodge, Monson Motor Lodge swimming pool incident. But for me, all of those events were in a continuous timeline by the same group of people so I see them as components of the "St. Augustine movement: 1963–1964" that should be included in an article about that movement rather than have separate articles. Brucehartford (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that a speech or conference is not a movement. I've removed those two entries to reduce confusion. I still want to develop a list of campaigns or movements.

In response to your thoughts about the tricky question, I agree totally.

I definitely agree that individual events/activities that were part of a local movement should go into a single article. Let me clarify the reason I'm creating a list of events/activities for a single locality. I was making a sublist for later use. Afterwards, I can pick a local movement, work with existing content throughout wikipedia, and combine the material into one article page and build it up from that point. I've removed redlinks where no article or section within an article exists to remove confusion.

One more thing you will eventually notice about the list. My objective with this list is to also capture the counteroffensive campaigns of movement activists or participants. If I find a wikipedia article, then I will list those entries within the proper locality.

On a separate note, I have a question about a conflict of claims on the 1956 timeline article at CRMV. The "Clinton, Tennessee — Desegregation of First White School (August)" section states Clinton High School was the first to desegregate. Howvever, the Before Clinton or Little Rock, Oak Ridge Integration Made History article from Knoxville News Sentinel contradicts that claim. What are your thoughts?

If I've misunderstood any points, please let me know. Mitchumch (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't known about Oak Ridge, I'll review the Timeline article and revise it, thanks. It's noteworthy, though, that at that time, Oak Ridge was governed by the AEC (a federal agency) rather than local elected officials who only had "advisory" power. So the Oak Ridge situation was, to some degree, similar to the desegregation of military-run grade schools on southern military bases that were desegregated by command order in 1953.

On another point, Mitch, since developing this list is your project, perhaps it would be better for you to create your own User and Talk pages and run discussions from there. I don't mind that the initial discussion has been started on my page, but since it's your project, your page and your Sandbox is where it should be held. Brucehartford (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. See User talk:Mitchumch/sandbox. Mitchumch (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I haven't read the latest entries here, or the page itself, mostly because of time (have to sign off again now) but also to give Mitch the time to enact his vision. Will pay closer attention, thanks, and back later. Randy Kryn 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Understood. Mitchumch (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you still with us?

I have a question I want to ask you regarding the term Civil Rights Movement and its etymology? Mitchumch (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still on the right side of the grass. I just don't have time anymore to monitor and edit Wikipedia pages. I will, however, be hapy to respond to questions. What did you want to know?

Brucehartford (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)