Talk:Civil rights movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Readable prose length[edit]

In the edit summaries (View history page) Coffee proposed that the article text be edited as readable prose length exceeds 100,000kb. Randy Kryn proposed that the riot sections be removed in response. Of course the latter point is absurd. Dr. King himself acknowledged that he was moved to begin the Poor People's Campaign because of the urban riots, and because some of the rioters spoke with him and told him to do more about poverty and the war (this is discussed in Beyond Vietnam, among other speeches 1967-68). The role of 1968 riots on passing the Fair Housing Act is well documented and consensed on. The riot sections are essential.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Without deleting matter, it may be possible to split the article into two, African-American civil rights movement (1954–1959) and African-American civil rights movement (1960–1968) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talkcontribs) 09:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • {new section). No need to split into two, although the "real" nonviolent Civil Rights Movement did occur between 1960-1968 (between the sit-ins and the Poor People's Campaign). I proposed getting rid of, or drastically trimming, the riot sections because they seem tangential to nonviolence and were not part of the movement. Maybe a brief mention about the riots impact on King's decision to mount his Poor People's Campaign could capsulize the history of the riots in a paragraph or two, but entire sections on the riots really don't belong in a page about the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. I can see the viewpoint to include them, and some editors are adamant about it, so possibly at least a trim there, and I see that GPRamirez5 has made some good trims already on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    If the article is too long, it would be usual to turn it into a kind of "summary" article, with longer material split out into sub-articles on that specific topic. So perhaps the detail of the riots merit their own subarticle, but of course should still be summarized and the main points given in this main article too.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some people will want the riots to be described in full, not summarized. Leave the riots in here, in full, until they can be moved to another article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • We seem to have the old battle, inclusionists versus exclusionists. Often, one man's trivia or cruft is another man's important relevant matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2018[edit]

Closing this RM/RFC. There is consensus that it is appropriate to move the article, as the great majority of references to 'civil rights movement' are referring to this period, and the point some editors made that the term currently redirects here is very persuasive. Although there are other movements around the world that are about civil rights, the arguments around WP:COMMONNAME are similarly persuasive. So, we have a consensus to move to the more concise name. It is pointed out that there is already a hatnote at the top of the article, pointing towards civil rights movements, which covers other such movements. In terms of the exact format of the name of the article I think the consensus is to move it to Civil rights movement (as opposed to Civil Rights Movement), as per WP:NCCAPS and particularly due to the recent discussion (here), which was very recent, proceeded properly, and there's nothing new provided here to make me think that should not be respected. The capitalization at the top of Template:African-American civil rights movement should be amended to match. A side note that some of the responses to others' comments in this RFC were perhaps a little over-exuberant. We're all trying to make the encyclopedia better here. Fish+Karate 12:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  • As several editors were selectively canvassed into this discussion by a user opposing the request, I find it necessary to reach out to the broader community to get a clearer and less slanted consensus. This RFC is about whether this title should be named as its WP:COMMONNAME: Civil Rights Movement (which already redirects to this article. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968)Civil Rights Movement – This is seemingly the most proper term for the movement, and is also the most common way the movement is referred to/searched for. Seeing as Civil Rights Movement already redirects here, I don't see why this would be controversial. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support, makes the most sense as the present title is rarely, if ever, used except for this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There was also a Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to Civil rights movement. This is clearly the primary topic across all civil rights movements and as you say, it already redirects here, so per WP:CONCISE it makes sense. However, the issue of capitalisation was argued just a couple of months ago (see above), and there was a very firm consensus that this is not a proper noun. So firmly oppose the attempt to bring back capitalisation. Just in case anyone's forgotten, the ngram very clearly shows that the majority of sources do not capitalise,[1] as required by WP:NCCAPS.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That RM was for every page using the term, not for this page alone, which is arguably a proper noun. The RM close you mention did not indicate "very firm consensus", and addressed all of the older pages, which actually shouldn't be in upper-case while this one page should. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, it may seem like a proper noun, but in fact the majority of book sources treat it as a descriptive phrase rather than a proper noun. See my comment below with GBooks link. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The "civil rights movement" can pertain to many movements, the Civil Rights Movement pertains only to one. Your argument about it being treated as a phrase or noun is irrelevant considering that fact. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME and it is no doubt the primary topic. Meatsgains(talk) 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm really iffy on this one. The current title is descriptive enough to inform any reader exactly what the topic at hand is. Also, although it's often called the "Civil rights movement", there have been many other movements in world history with the same name (and the title of "Civil rights movement" in general is pretty vague in comparison to this one). "Civil rights movement" already redirects here, but a hatnote is able to easily redirect people already... Personally, I think it's fine the way it is. (But I sorta OPPOSE the capital letters per above). Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I point everyone to how the term is used in the vast majority of these book titles, and in many of the books as well when referred to as the movement itself: Google Books search. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support since there will be a notice at the top as to where to find the longer list of Civil rights movements, and this one is so named in most of the English-speaking countries. Jzsj (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well two comments really. One, to follow up on Coffee's point above, if we expand the GBooks search term to include the word "was",[2] to show how the term is used in running prose (rather than titles), it should be clear that those sources generally are talking about the specific movement of the 1960s, but it should also be clear that the term is *not* generally capitalized in running prose, which means per WP:NCCAPS we should also not capitalize it. And two, following a discussion on my talk page just now, I have realised that there is another article at Civil rights movements, which discusses movements of this type generally, and around the world. An RM there in 2015 specifically addressed in its close the fact that civil rights movement (singular) was a redirect to this one, so I think the status quo of "movement" meaning the 1960s one and "movements" meaning general movements is the correct one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I Point to [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18] among many others for the term's use as a proper noun in prose as well. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      Sure, I don't deny that it is sometimes capitalised, but that's not the point. Per WP:NCCAPS the term must be consistently capitalised in prose to be considered a proper noun. The ngram I posted above, and the gbooks search for the term in prose, both show a clear majority of sources using sentence case. I support the move to the simple title, but not too happy about the attempt to reverse a decision on caps which was made after considerable debate up above, and which seems to go against our guidelines. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
      That discussion in no way has anything to do with this one, and I didn't even read it until after I opened this. That entire discussion seems entirely pointless anyways, everyone was trying to solve a problem that had an easier fix: descriptive name titles. The "Civil Rights Movement" only encompasses this article's subject, the rest were historical factors and the build up to this large movement. Also, I will remind you that this is not a paper encyclopedia. No consensus here is ever solid, so pointing to the past is never a strong argument here, no matter how recent it may seem. But, please do not attempt to misrepresent my intentions here. This is a very simply RM based on a logical conclusion as Civil Rights Movement makes a lot more sense than the current title, just as we wouldn't have an Occupy wall street (2011—2012) and instead have Occupy Wall Street. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
      It has everything to do with it. You're trying to reverse a decision that was only made a few months ago. Why not just concentrate on the concise issue instead of trying to bring back caps by the back door. If you change the move request to be to Civil rights movement, you'll have my full support and probably everyone else's too. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      @Amakuru: 1. Repeating something doesn't make it true. I didn't read those; I was involved in various other administrative areas of the site (WP:AC/DS for WP:ARBAP2 enforcement) until literally just a few days ago when I decided to start up Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, wrote J. Charles Jones (DYK Feb 25), wrote And the Walls Came Tumbling Down (DYKN), wrote White America, Inc. (DYK tomorrow), upgraded Fannie Lou Hamer to GA status (DYK Feb 26), created Template:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, created Template:The Civil Rights Movement Barnstar, and created Portal:Civil Rights Movement. 2. I'm fine with this article being un-capitalized if the consensus is for that... but the current title is simply illogical... and is used by literally no source. I really wish you'd be more open-minded here. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
      @Coffee: Sorry I missed this response in the heated discussions that have followed... thanks for the clarification, I accept that you did not know about the previous RM and started this one in good faith, and I definitely agree that the current title is illogical, just that we differ on where the new home should be. Also kudos and thanks for your work on those important civil rights articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Mitchumch (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh To have a focus on 1954-1968 era is good; we should though have a series, actually for the years prior - perhaps this article will evolve to cover the whole Civil Rights Movement, which has its roots in the Reconstruction Era and got going in reaction to Jim Crow in the late 1800s (See, Wendt, Simon. Civil Rights Movement: in 1 Encyclopedia of African American History. Oxford University Press. 2009. p.411-419) - so I think the current proposal might be just rearranging deck chairs, and will not lead to better coverage (especially if after this move is made, the article is still as current). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) As to "African American" in the title, if there is a need to disambiguate from other CRM, I suppose I would suggest looking at Great Migration (African American). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment pinging all those involved in the previous discussion: Mahveotm Rjensen SMcCandlish Tony1 Dicklyon Randy Kryn James Allison SouthernNights GPRamirez5 Mitchumch Checkingfax  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You pinged the editors from the November discussion but not the major 2014 discussion, so please do so. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. This is getting ridiculous. We've been over this again and again and again. This is a WP:NTITLE, a descriptive and arbitrary title of WP's own devising, to cover this article's scope and to disambiguate from the many, many other civil rights movements (including other African-American ones). It is literally impossible for this to be a proper name; it is a common-noun phrase by definition. Even the date range we're using is arbitrary; RS sharply disagree on how many African-American civil rights movements there were and how to define them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes it's a special movement, but not so special that we should marginalize all the other civil rights movements in the world.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    If that's the case, though, then Civil rights movement and Civil Rights Movement shouldn't redirect here. The issue of primary topic is already decided. Thnaks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    Of course they should, this is the CRmovement that all others are based on and the long-term redirects are fine. Since you are pinging to good faithly expand the discussion, maybe you can ping editors involved in the major 2015 RM as well. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    Or, from another view, the last consensus discussion about it concluded they they seem to qualify for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (which operates independently of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:ATDAB, etc., etc.). I'm not sure that would actually stand if revisited, given the number of notable civil rights movements; a strong WP:SYSTEMICBIAS argument can be made against the idea, and to instead send those redirs to the disambiguation page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. We are not in the business of promoting terms to "Proper" status when sources don't do that. The descriptive title is fine. And we've been over this before and had a strong consensus to follow our usual title policy and style guidelines. Let's not step backwards here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the movement was deeply rooted in history going back a century--and still underway. A narrow time frame seems to me to be misleading. Its success in 1964-65 caused other large minority groups to launch what they also called a "civil rights movement." Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have just reverted two moves at African-American civil rights movement (1896–1954) and African-American civil rights movement (1865–1896), which were made without discussion. There may or may not be a case for moving those articles alongside the discussion on whether this is one movement or separate movements at different times. Given the above RM, though, which established names for all three articles two months ago, those moves were clearly not uncontroversial and will need an RM discussion to gain consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    • *sigh* - Apparently you've forgotten of WP:BOLD or how it is one of our five pillars on this encyclopedia. I didn't read any of the previous discussions and there is no policy requirement that I do so. @Amakuru: you're being very hard to deal with, what was wrong with those titles? They clearly state inside the articles that they are not about the actual Civil Rights Movement. This feels like bashing my head into a wall. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
      • They were moved and the move was objected to. As long as they aren't moved again, there's no problem. Again, WP:RMCM: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply: There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title; there has been any past debate about the best title for the page; someone could reasonably disagree with the move." At this point, I think it should be assumed that any undiscussed moves will be controversial. Dekimasuよ! 22:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
        • But what, specifically, is controversial about the titles I used? Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
          • The editing guideline WP:BOLD is cited twice at Wikipedia:Five pillars. The first one links to the top of the page, which includes the advice “Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted” (bold in original). The second one links to WP:CAREFUL, further down the page, which states, “In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view.... If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.” Your first move mentioned here was to the title Origins of the Civil Rights Movement, which assumes a construction of the title of this page that had already been objected to by multiple editors here, meaning it was foreseeable that the move was controversial even in the absence of reading previous extended discussions on this talk page. And WP:BOLD specifically indicates you should “be sure to read the talk page” and “find consensus before making changes” in such cases. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
            • I ask about the titles and you jump into a rant about WP:BOLD (a question I actually asked about below)... I don't find this very informative. And attempting to tell someone that they have to read the talk page before making a move (when there is no move protection nor editnotice against it) is really quite baffling. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
        • @Dekimasu: Also I'd asked to see the policy that stated I couldn't be WP:BOLD on those moves. I'm still waiting... Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
          • I didn't say you couldn't be bold. You were bold, it was reverted, and now we are back to discuss. Given the current discussion here, it was likely foreseeable that this would be controversial even without, perhaps, knowing of the sections directly above this on the talk page. In either event, Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering changes is the policy version of what I had stated above: "Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged.... Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title.... Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." Dekimasuよ! 23:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
            • So you're telling me you decided to tell me that I shouldn't have moved something... yet I was also allowed to be bold and move it, but because you knew about something being controversial I should have also known and therefore not moved it? That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support by proxy, editor BruceHartford agreed to allow me to bring this here from today's talk page discussion. Bruce Hartford is the founder of Civil Rights Movement Veterans, a group for activists who worked within the 1950s and 1960s movement. CRMV is one of the main sources for references used in this article. Bruce Hartford's statement: I and most others I know always capitalize "Civil Rights Movement" when we're referring to what we see as a distinct, named, historical event that occurred between 1951 and 1968. Same as "World War II" or "Great Depression." Yes, of course, there were and are other social movements for civil rights here and in other countries, so it's also a non-capitalized generic term. And when used as the generic not capitalized. For me, the purpose of words and language are for communication so they should be used as most people understand them. Thanks to Bruce for allowing me to copy this here. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting, and nothing against BruceHartford at all, but clearly selective for you to post this here. I thought selective canvassing was supposed to be a bad thing. Dekimasuよ! 23:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 1. Red herring. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 2. Cannot be considered canvassing if he didn't know which way Brucehartford would comment, nor did he ask him to comment in a certain manner. Which as you can see from their discussion on Bruce's talkpage, he did not. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
BruceHartford asked during our discussion "If there are specific questions you'd like me to offer an opinion on, I'd be happy to do so", and I mentioned this RM as a specific question I'd like his opinion on. No mystery as to wording, he asked, I answered. He then wrote his comment (see his talk page), and I asked him if he could bring his answer here or if I could do so, except for the first sentence which was a comment on process, and he agreed I could. Not an issue unless people don't like his comment, which is wholly in favor of upper-casing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously canvassed and obviously he knew which way Bruce would answer. Striking it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Take it to ANI if you'd like it, I've reverted your strike. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It pains me that this looks like we're arguing over whether to silence Brucehartford. To make the circumstances clear: Randy Kryn had previous interactions with Brucehartford on his talk page last year in which Brucehartford wrote Civil Rights Movement in caps. And this time, Brucehartford never wrote "support," either here or on his own talk page. "Support" was an invention by Randy according to his interpretation of Brucehartford's quote, which actually makes no comment on how the title should be capitalized here. There are editors here who think canvassing and refactoring are all right when they agree, and not all right when they disagree; that withdrawing the RfC is "not going to happen" but it was all right to add the RfC tag out of normal process; and that it is all right to hat an editor's comment when they tell you to go to ANI, but also all right to tell you to go to ANI. That is exactly the type of attitude that Brucehartford noted in the sentence of his comment Randy Kryn decided not to copy and paste here: "I took a look at that discussion, but it's way too Wiki-wonky for me." Very pertinent analysis. This is not moving towards a healthy conclusion or revealing any new insights. I have not !voted here, but the case has not been made, and it appears that the goal is to wear down opponents, which is not how this is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Dekimasuよ! 07:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I can honestly say I don't think I've seen a "proxy vote" in a WP discussion before... for one thing, how are we supposed to discuss Mr Hartford's !vote with him if he isn't here to defend it? But then again, this discussion has had just about everything in it so far, from alleged forum shopping to alleged canvassing, people assuming good faith, people assuming bad faith, and even that old time-honoured favourite, the threat to leave.[19] So I shouldn't be surprised any more.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The attempted Support by Proxy, which is all about personal experience. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to make a decision based on actual personal experience, but we can take the person's thoughts into consideration. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Is this Civil Rights Movement with a date, or without a date? - GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Coffee:- Got it. Question 2- Is this related to the page-split idea in some way?-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Alanscottwalker I'm not sure I follow you. The encyclopedia article entry for the "Civil Rights Movement" you cited written by Simon Wendt begins with the following paragraph,
    '"Civil rights movement" is an umbrella term that refers to the various efforts of African American activists to gain full citizenship rights and to end racial discrimination in American society. Sustained civil rights organizing began in the early twentieth century, matured in the 1940s and 1950s, and culminated in the mass nonviolent protest of the 1960s.'
There is a section in the encyclopedia article called, "The Roots of the Movement", but that is not the start date. The "Roots" are the antecedents of the movement. The academic consensus of late is to extend the CRM no earlier than 1930s (Do a Google Books/Scholar search for the term Long Civil Rights Movement to see some of this debate). I would be happy to provide a good list of books and journal articles to demonstrate what I'm talking about upon request. If your argument is the CRM started before 1930s, then I think you will need to substantiate that claim with a body of scholarly sources. I have not seen any such consensus for that claim. If your argument is there were antecedents of the CRM from the nineteenth century, then that argument reflects academic consensus. Those antecedents can be addressed within this existing article. However, the start date of the CRM and the antecedents of the CRM are not the same thing.
Also, the term "Civil Rights Movement" is the most widely accepted term used by the academic community. The term "African American civil rights movement" has never been a widely accepted term for this movement. Not then, not now, or any time in between. If I misunderstood your argument, then I apologize. Mitchumch (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "what is [treated as] a proper name off-Wikipedia" with "what is a Wikipedia article title". Most often, a WP article title for something that has a proper name will be that name, but when there's a great deal of ambiguity and the actual scope of the article is arbitrary and only agrees with some subset of how the RS approach the subject, we use a descriptive phrase (WP:NTITLE). Doing otherwise is essentially WP:OR, i.e. doing novel evaluation and synthesis to arrive at a conclusion "this, as we have defined it, has the following proper name", which is basically a falsification of the facts of real-world treatment of the subject. If it weren't for the fact that it would produce a too-long article, the other alternative would be merger, so that our definition of the AA CRM encompassed every definition of it, either as the limit or as a subset. But it's not practical due to length and detail-level of the material.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
"Despite differing interpretations, the authors just noted all reinforce what has become the consensus view that the civil rights movement did not suddenly spring up in 1954 of 1955. The most common points of origin are located in the 1930s or 1940s. However, some historians have pushed back the chronology even further. Adam Faiclough, both in his study of Louisiana and his survey of the black freedom struggle, locates the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1890s with Ida B. Wells's militant campaign against lynching followed a decade later by the founding of the NAACP. Kevern Verney digs even deeper to discover the movement's origins. He begins his text on black civil rights in America with the introduction of slavery in the seventeenth century, but like Fairclough he focuses more on the turn-of-the-twentieth century. In contrast, Glenn Eskew views the early stirrings of the civil rights movement in Birmingham, Alabama immediately following World War II and finds that the movement led by the Reverencd Fred Shutlesworth ten years later "marked a clear departure from traditional black protest" in the city. Eskew's study raises a cautionary flag for those seeking to extend the traditional civil rights chronology too far back. First, campaigns for civil rights, even in the same locale, did not always proceed without interruption and often moved in fits and starts. Second, a useful distinction should be made between the black freedom struggle and the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement if it has any contextual meaning must be seen as a distinct and coherent part of the longer freedom struggle. It roughly coincides with the acceleration and upward climb of organized local and national black protest for equal treatment and first-class citizenship. There were obviously civil rights components to the black freedom struggle in earlier times — during Reconstruction and with the founding of the NAACP. Nevertheless, the modern phase of the movement, which absorbed so much attention during the 1950s and 1960s and achieved much of the protest agenda, needs to be identified for the characteristics that made it distinct from earlier efforts without forgetting the links that connected them.
Mitchumch (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
What's your question? You just repeated what I said, its roots are in reconstruction, the movement goes back to the turn of the century in the Jim Crow era, and there is a "modern phase" in the mid-20th century, I already said all those things. Separately, what's your question about "African-American", is that a question for someone else, because it responds to nothing I said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker This quote was in response to GPRamirez5. Your part is above GPRamirez5. Mitchumch (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
So, then you do follow me now, Ida B. Wells and the NAACP, et al. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The actual movement to end legalized segregation in the US used specific nonviolent strategies to do so, and occurred between 1960 and 1968 (the 1954 date can be included if the Supreme Court case, the Till publicity, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott are included). It was organized and run by the same core group of people. The top-tier consisted of Martin Luther King and James Bevel, as without either one the movement would probably not have been successful. Many others were inspired by and worked on the movements initiated, directed, and run by King or Bevel. The proper noun, Civil Rights Movement, is as much of a noun as 'World War II' and other labels for major events which had a clear purpose. The events before 1954 were attempts, but not successful attempts. The 'Civil Rights Movement' (or Civil rights movement) written about in this flawed article is the correct lone descriptor for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    But this is a case where, by analogy, there were 2 or 4 or 6 (whose analysis do you prefer?) back-to-back related wars over several generations, plus many other wars in many other places involving different people fighting for essentially the same cause, and they were each called "world war II" (sometimes with an additional qualifier, by some writers). Where's the proper name (or proper noun or proper-noun phrase, whatever term you prefer)? There's no rationale to capitalize all of them, or just some. People actually involved in, or deeply focused as schoarl on, any of them in particular might tend to capitalize those, while others do not. Nor is there a rationale for treating one of them in particular as somehow very different from the others, when the sources don't treat them that way, but as a series of conflicts, inter-related and in a continuum over time, with no agreed-upon dividing lines between them. There are even reputable writers who consider them all one thing going back centuries and continuing to the foreseeable future. In this and other RM discussions for a few years now, you assert something's a proper name while doing nothing to demonstrate it, and don't seem to be working from any particular definition of the idea. It's as if "is a proper name" and "matters to me" are synonymous in your reality tunnel. PS: the BPP wasn't limited to nonviolent strategies but was part of black power segment of this civil rights movement, so your conception of it doesn't agree with our article scope (nor is that defined by "the actual movement to end legalized segregation in the US").  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Unless I'm misreading your text you say that World War II isn't a proper noun? That aside, it's a good example for this RM, as Wikipedia defines World War II as occurring between 1939-1945, with events before that listed as "Prelude". Yes, the Civil Rights Movement was limited to nonviolent strategies. Every success in the Civil Rights Movement was the result of continued, understood, and strategically applied nonviolence. Every legal barrier and judicial decision which upheld legal segregation that was removed in the era came about because of a continual dialogue, a dialogue which was purposely created by the top-tier of the Civil Rights Movement. They did this through study, field-testing, and refining the strategy. This culminated in seven intense years of thought and action which overturned legal status-quo segregation in the US. This seven-year peak, what some historians understand and define as the "Civil Rights Movement", added to humanity's knowledge of how and why nonviolence works, how it changed what seemed to be insurmountable social agreements and imaginary-but-agreed-upon "contracts" between identifiable groups of people, and how it purposely shed light on, and then removed, legal barriers which had been held in place through various civilizations and societies for thousands of years. In other words, by understanding and applying nonviolence, a definable small-set of individuals initiated, organized, and directed a definable series of events within a clearly definable timeline to move American society from set-in-stone legal constrictions to basic legal equality. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    So much for analogy working, and yes you are misreading my point. I also don't see any reason to get into off-topic material, like whether the movement as you define it was entirely non-violent; that's a content dispute you can take up with the people writing the Black Panthers into this article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Re the accusation above that I WP:CANVASsed people into this discussion, I find that quite absurd. The editors pinged were all of those who participated in the previous RM, including those who supported it and those who opposed it. It is therefore in no way a selective canvas, just a courtesy to people who participated in a debate just *two months ago*, and may have thought the matter was settled, to notify them that another move on the same topic has been brought up all over again. Also, I'm not even "opposing the request" anyway, I'm mostly in agreement with Coffee on the case for a move, just not on reversing the decision to move to lower case.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    Also, @Dekimasu: please could you undo your removal of this discussion from the RM list? That seems very irregular to me, RM is the place for move discussions, not RFC. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    This is now an RFC. I'm not a fool enough to think that your pings weren't intended to swing the request. This is rather ridiculous. It is a very, very simple and obvious name change that needs to be made. Why some of you are fighting it so hard is beyond me. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, now we have a bunch of administrators in disagreement on issues about process, which is never a fun thing. I certainly don't want to create a precedent whereby an RfC supersedes an RM. But I don't think readding the RM tag will help, and since all I've done here is remove the broken RM tag, I want to clarify the situation. 1) As an RM, this was almost certainly going to be closed as "no consensus" on Sunday afternoon. I say that as someone who is not really a fan of how NCCAPS is employed. 2) Pinging users from previous discussions is not an uncommon thing to do in a move request. Requested moves are not part of the dispute resolution process. They are meant to be amicable discussions, and pinging users from previous discussions is something that happens from time to time. I do not believe that Amakuru was trying to swing the request, and we skipped past assuming good faith pretty quickly when it started to appear that the move request wouldn't succeed. A lot of move requests don't succeed. We're never done making move requests. It's not a big deal whether a change is made today or in another request next month, or both. I'm not sure why the temperature level had to get so high. 3) It is not sufficient to say that this is a simple and obvious change that needs to be made based upon a selection of sources presented by the nominator. The standard for capitalizing titles according to the current naming conventions and MOS (which, again, I am not a fan of; I would write Civil Rights Movement in my academic prose) is much higher than that. Perhaps some of the dissatisfaction here is related to not being acclimated to the standards that are usually employed in RM discussions. I hope both sides can take that into consideration. Each side has an argument here. 4) As I noted in my edit summary, the RfC tag broke the RM listing, on top of which it effectively extends discussion for another 4 weeks and makes it impossible to close the RM as an RM. There wouldn't have been a listing on RM even with the tag. It might have been preferable to have taken off the RfC tag, let the RM close, and then start an RfC. However, I erred on the side of the longer period for comment that is specifically related to dispute resolution, because once the RfC tag went up, it was a sign that a normal, neutral RM discussion was unlikely to progress in any productive direction. In either event, I'd suggest a post at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves would be the best way to keep this on the radar over there. Dekimasuよ! 21:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
An index of some archived move/title discussions shows this is a perennial and complex issue:
This doesn't mean I have confidence in the ability of an RfC to solve the problem, but it can be given a try. Dekimasuよ! 22:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
This list is misleading in at least two ways. These are not RM's, some are simply a single comment. And when these comments were written, almost the entire time the page was upper-cased (the list makes it look, at least subconsciously, as if the page were always lower-cased). This was a stable upper-cased page for a long long time. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
1) Some of these are requested moves, and even requested moves you participated in. 2) The links were not used to advocate a specific position. They were precisely denoting the locations of previous discussions that show the title "is a perennial and complex issue." 3) The most recent move request established the most recent consensus title. Dekimasuよ! 22:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, concur that it is not appropriate to be moving pages listed in the Talk:African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968)#Requested move 23 November 2017 without a new requested move discussion: the previous requested move established consensus titles for these articles. If someone is under the impression that the close in the above discussion was mistaken, it can be taken to Wikipedia:Move review. Otherwise, moves away from those consensus titles are assumed to be controversial and should not be performed unilaterally per WP:RMCM and WP:RMUM. Dekimasuよ! 22:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment about the canvassing - The pings were canvassing because most of the users supporting the move previously had already commented, yet the others had not. Claiming that isn't an underhanded attempt to swing the result here is absolutely ridiculous, and seems indicate people think they can WP:GAME our policies here whenever it suits them. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think this should all be toned down; the likely response would be that adding an RfC tag on top of the RM is another form of forum shopping. It would be great to concentrate on the merits of the move proposal. Otherwise I'm not sure what the RfC is going to accomplish. Dekimasuよ! 23:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • 1. It might be your likely response, but that doesn't mean it would be everyone's actual response. 2. If you wanted to focus on the move you wouldn't have found it necessary to reply to a comment I'm fully entitled/permitted to make. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've mentioned, the ironic thing is that I'm inclined to agree with you that "Civil Rights Movement" is a better title. Unfortunately, the case has not been made to this point. It is important to understand that the editors who are opposing your request are not doing so out of spite. For example, you mentioned how the term is used in book titles, but book titles use obligatory caps in a way that is not relevant to the capitalization of the title here, which has to do with how the term is used in running text. You mentioned a good number of specific books that use the term "Civil Rights Movement," but not with any reference to the total proportion of reliable sources that use the term in caps or otherwise. You assert, in your revised intro to the RfC, that "Civil Rights Movement" is the WP:COMMONNAME, but that has not been established by your evidence. And even if it is the most common name, your argument does not account for the fact that WP:COMMONNAME states that "ambiguous names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." It has been argued here that the proposed title is ambiguous or does not reflect worldwide usage of the term. Without dealing with these weaknesses in the proposal, the request is unlikely to gain consensus. Instead you are citing Wikipedia:Casting aspersions while accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. Note: Wikipedia:Canvassing says that it is appropriate to ping "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." User:Amakuru pinged everyone, both supporters and opposers, of the previous request, and he also said he was inclined to support much of your request—why would he be trying to WP:GAME anything? And if your case is good on the merits, the !vote shouldn't matter. Please consider the possibility that it wasn't necessary to react so strongly to the pings, and if you feel strongly about the proposal, consider presenting more supporting evidence. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Dekimasu Is this the type of evidence you are seeking to demonstrate the WP:COMMONNAME for this article topic. The following terms are some of the terms used to denote the movement in the 20th century based on Google N-gram. The following is only from Google Books:
Civil Rights Movement - 667,000 hits
American civil rights movement - 58,900 hits
Second Reconstruction - 43,100 hits
Civil Rights Revolution - 50,700 hits
Modern Civil Rights Movement - 21,700 hits
Black Freedom Movement - 22,600 hits
Black Freedom Struggle - 31,700 hits (This term is different from the others. This term has emerged within the scholarly community to denote the history of struggle for the African American community from colonial era to present time in the United States.)
Black civil rights movement - 26,300 hits
U.S. Civil Rights Movement - 17,300 hits
1960s Civil Rights Movement - 11,100 hits
Negro Revolution - 25,200 hits
African American civil rights movement - 20,200 hits
Southern Freedom Movement - 4,810 hits
Black rights movement - 5,200 hits
United Sta:tes civil rights movement - 4,530 hits
Negro Freedom Movement - 3,140 hits
Classic civil rights movement - 669 hits
Classical civil rights movement - 411 hits
As is apparent, the term "African American civil rights movement" isn't the common term for this article topic. It has never been a common name for this article topic. However, WP:Reliable sources was never used to make this determination. Mitchumch (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
This research by Mitchumch should convince editors, even those who oppose this move, that "Civil Rights Movement", upper-cased and per the nomination, is the primary and common name for this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're mostly right, but it should not upper cased. Google searches like those above don't filter for case, unlike the ngram and eyeball search I presented earlier, showing that the term is mostly lower case in sources. You seem to be completely ignoring that, Randy. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is helpful. I'd rather not play devil's advocate, but "Foo Civil Rights Movement" is always sure to get fewer hits than "Civil Rights Movement" by virtue of the addition of the term. The capitalization issue remains, and the question of ambiguity might remain as well, although it seems clear to me that the American version is the primary use of the term in cases where it is capitalized. The capped version is arguably the most concise and precise title for this particular movement, whereas uncapped versions may not be precise enough. Dekimasuよ! 22:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I fully agree with @Randy Kryn: this research by Mitchumch (talk · contribs) makes the arguments for keeping the current title and opposing this move very weak. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu Could you elaborate what you mean by the "question of ambiguity"? I don't know what you're talking about. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
When you are in a context where it is perfectly clear what you are talking about, you need no adjective, or you need only use the adjective once, not over and over. Or to put it another way "American civil rights movement" is an encyclopedic title but it obviously uses an adjective.[22] (Compare American Civil War and Civil War). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure where the "question of ambiguity" is. With the exception of this article topic, I'm not aware of any movement, within the United States or outside the United States, that has a WP:COMMONNAME of the Civil Rights Movement. Please list them so that I can see it. Here's what I found on Wikipedia:

Articles with the term "civil rights movement" within their titles are:

Mitchumch (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What's your question? You just presented links for civil rights movements outside America. I think we all realize there are many/(majority of?) Americans, who speak/write/publish in, English, and that our editor base skews American. Besides which, what don't you get about a first sentence or first paragraph "American" or "black" or African-American" or "1950s-1960s", etc as an adjective with 'civil rights movement', and never having to write that entire adjective/subject phrase again, because the context is already established. It's not at all hard to understand what Dekimasuよ said, for example, if one tries to understand a sentence: "During this civil rights movement people were injured." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Please list any movement, within the United States or outside the United States, that has a WP:COMMONNAME of the Civil Rights Movement. Mitchumch (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
But you have shown nothing about a common name, you have shown that the phrase 'civil rights movement' is used variously, and to you, it does not matter in what context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Solid evidence[edit]

Evidence that capitalization is not necessary or even very common is found in books usage: SEE HERE. This has been gone over several times, and there really is no reason for WP to promote this term to proper name status, when sources mostly don't do so. Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Randy's reference to "evidence presented by Mitchumch" is vacuous, and Mitchumch only show case-insensitive hit counts. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A proposal[edit]

Since much of the objection is about the over-capitalization, and since Civil rights movement already redirects here, it would seem that a discussion focused on that alternative might have a chance. I suggest withdrawing the current doomed proposal and starting over clean to see. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, over the current title. But my first preference remains as "Civil Rights Movement" referring to the formal noun, instead of the informal Civil rights movement. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've commented on your preference also at User talk:Coffee#Project and category page moves. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You said at the outset "I don't see why this would be controversial." Now that you see, would you withdrawn the proposal as I suggested? Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The term "Civil Rights Movement" is the proper name for an historical event. Per WP:NCCAPS, "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. Mitchumch (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The next sentence at NCCAPS says "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." The argument being made by Dicklyon and several others here is that this is not the case for the topic of the current article. Although (for the third time?) I dislike NCCAPS, this is not really helping the argument here. Again, I think it might be useful to attempt a more nuanced argument: that the capitalized title "Civil Rights Movement" is WP:PRECISE, while "civil rights movement" is ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 06:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu What make the term "the civil rights movement" ambiguous? Mitchumch (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That there are many civil rights movements, any of which may be referred to as "the civil rights movement" in a given context. I think this has been covered already. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
“The civil rights movement” without “Northern Ireland” attached in each instance is relatively common in running text on that topic, just as it is common not to attach something related to the USA in each instance in which the American movement is referenced: PBS, BBC, UK National Archives, Yale/Pluto Press. Again, the counter-argument here is that Civil rights movement already redirects to this topic. But the argument I presented is the only one I can see that gives a reason to reject the guidance of NCCAPS. Dekimasuよ! 06:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu Is it the WP:Common name? Mitchumch (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME states, "Ambiguous... names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered.... When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." I feel like we are going in circles here. Maybe you would have more luck asking these questions of someone else. Dekimasuよ! 07:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Are you asking me if "Civil Rights Movement" is the common name for this subject? I am suggesting that the capitalized form may be the most common name that is not ambiguous. If you are asking me whether the capitalized form is the most common name, period, that is not clear from the discussion, nor does that seem to be sufficient based on the style guide. Dekimasuよ! 07:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu I was asking if "Civil Rights Movement" is the common name for this subject.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I think there are misconceptions surrounding the term and social movement on Wikipedia about the Civil Rights Movement. The current naming of this article title is a reflection of these misconceptions.
WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." The section on "Ambiguous ... names" was intended for terms like "Civil War". Mitchumch (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I made the same proposal to amend the RM as Dicklyon some days ago, but maybe not as eloquently Smiley.png. This is already the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because the redirect from civil rights movement comes here, and I think that's absolutely correct. This topic dwarfs the Northern Ireland and other American ones in terms of common usage. I think there's little chance of "Civil Rights Movement" gaining consensus, since all the evidence say it's not generally a proper noun per the definition in WP:NCCAPS. But I think we could gain common ground with "civil rights movement", given the usage of that term in reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The evidence presented by Mitchumch shows that it is accepted as a proper noun throughout much of society. Even though this is not universal, and it doesn't have to be, this large acceptance seems to imply a good case for an exception. I, like Coffee, don't understand why some editors are so against this, and would ask them to consider endorsing an exception. And I don't think it's been mentioned that the upper casing of the present full but awkward title was stable for many years, and was just recently changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't, though, and I don't know what gives you that impression. Mitchumch has given Google Books searches, but you were advised above that those don't control for capitalization. In running text, the first page of the Google Books search for "Civil Rights Movement" yields 6 instances of "civil rights movement," 2 instances of "Civil Rights movement," and 0 instances of "Civil Rights Movement." Is there other evidence that has been presented? Where is the evidence that it is generally accepted as a proper noun? I'm not convinced, so I definitely don't think the NCCAPS supporters will be convinced. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu What evidence would you be satisfied with to demonstrate that it is a proper noun? The CRM is the proper name for a unique historical event. You have not demonstrated there is any other movement with that term as its common name. Mitchumch (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The evidence you need to present is that in reliable sources the term "would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence", which is the clearly defined definition of what constitutes a proper name at WP:NCCAPS. I have already presented evidence through an ngram and Google books search, that suggests most sources *do not* capitalize the phrase in the middle of a sentence, even when clearly talking about the very subject of this article (which is the primary topic for "civil rights movement"). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Your proposed form "Civil rights movement" on ngram is the least dominant form used in books. The irony. Mitchumch (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Article names always start with a capital letter though, that's our general style. Like Institutional review board, Civil defense siren etc. In running text, they would not be capitalised at all, but in a Wikipedia title, they have the first letter of the first word capitalised.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mitchumch either doesn't understand capitalization in WP article titles, or doesn't understand capitalization in Google web and ngram search, or is playing dumb. His arguments make no sense to one who has read and understood WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. If the most common form in use is civil rights movement then the article title must be Civil rights movement, and the fully lowercase version will still work as a link as shown here. It's not that complicated. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Please look at page one of Google's results for 'civil rights movement' lower-cased (search engines are allowed to be a factor in determining the result of an RM). Then go to page two, then page three, then page four and onwards. Dozens of reputable organizations, encyclopedias, sources, and much more upper-case the term to Civil Rights Movement. It goes on and on. Lower-case is there too, but certainly not as often and not from as important and reputable sources. The movement veterans organization, which is used as a major source for the page, upper-cases Civil Rights Movement. There is little argument except for "consistency", which is not the standard on Wikipedia - the standard is the most common name, a name that is used 51% of the time. Please consider asking for an exception in this case, if an exception is even needed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I followed your link, Randy, and these were the results on page 1: [23][24][25]. The prose attached to the entries, and in many case the titles too, seem to more often be using lower case, as indeed I suspected before. Admittedly I am in the UK, so the results may be different, but many of those sources shown are American.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Mocking in good faith is a form of debate, I guess. This major era and very condensed carefully planned and organized series of events in human history took the social fabric of a nation, and then of the world, from one place and set it down in another. Separating white and black drinking fountains, for example, was common and accepted practice as late as 1963. Five years later it was seen as a form of institutional and societal insanity. That's what the Civil Rights Movement did, that's why a focused nonviolent movement which accomplished that deed is important to history and essential to encyclopedic knowledge, and that's why the upper-case capitalization of this unprecedented event in human history is important to some of us. Trivia is quoting one line of some rock lyric and listing that on its Wikipedia page. This, to some of us, is not trivia, but something much more than that, and to America is as important as its American Revolution, its Declaration of Independence, its American Civil War, and the horrors and honors of World War I and World War II. Trivia encapsulates things which are trivial. The history and effects of this movement were not. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Calm down Dicklyon, it was a thought typed out loud. I understand how it works. DuncanHill, you're not a rogue editor, you're an antagonizer lol. Anyways, if Coffee and Randy Kryn are okay with civil rights movement in lowercase as the new article title, then I guess I'll go along with it. Mitchumch (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The talk page is meant to be used for discussions about improving the article, not style-guide wars. Sorry if that antagonises everybody. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm only one editor, so my thoughts on this come from just my position. But no, I would not personally be okay with lower-case, and would be just as not-okay if Wikipedia wanted to lower-case, as I say above, the Declaration of Independence. The era and condensed event (it took a handful of people a handful of years to experiment, get it right, and then teach other people what to do to overturn legal segregation, and then accomplish that exact goal) is, per google search and other evidence, an upper-cased event. It should be recognized by the most comprehensive encyclopedia in human history as such. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This seems just too specialized or too limited a POV of this encyclopedic subject -- if one reads, Britannica (Clyborne 2018) or Oxford (Wendt 2009) encyclopedias -- encyclopedically, one can't write out of the M(m)ovement article: the African American office holder's of Reconstruction, the campaigners against lynching, the NAACP, the NUL, the 20/30s labor movement, the NNC, the MOWM, the FeC, the WWII CORE sitdowners, deseg of the armed forces, etc. . . . . in short, from the 13th Amendment to the death of King and beyond. So we need to have any article, called CRM or Crm or ACRM or . . . , into an overview article - it can't be as limited as your POV suggests. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I have thought about and am indeed open to your suggestion to expand the scope of this article to include the two "previous" articles (and beyond as needed) and then spring forks from there... but we need to change the title of this article to the main formal Civil Rights Movement, first, to do that. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
But not so, actually, and probably unwise, because it requires multiple upheavals. Simply start American Civil Rights movement outline or Civil rights movement overview , or something like that and build from the existing parts up, or to be a little less bold do it in a sandbox first - and worry about the final title (like the least important part) once you actually have the substance. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The evidence presented does not really say that. Unless we are going to discuss fundamental flaws in Google Ngrams, there is no getting around this distribution. This is the definition of going around in circles. If you want my support for weakening the guidance of WP:NCCAPS, you have it. Otherwise, this remains a bare assertion. Dekimasuよ! 19:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I might support such an amendment myself too, but it would need some careful thought as to which circumstances merit capitalisation of topics that are generally not capped in sources. It comes up often enough that there may be a case for tweaking something. My own pet article of Rwandan Genocide was summarily downcased a few years ago, and like Randy on this article, the change *felt wrong. But the sources spoke, and the guideline is clear, and there wasn't much I could argue about that. Anyway, with that in mind, I don't think it's right to make an exception just for this one article, when the guidelines are similarly very clear, in lieu of a more thorough debate and guideline being formulated.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
That's argumentum ad ignorantiam... we are having the debate right now. Also, from argumentum ad antiquitatem your appeal to tradition is fallacious logic: if the argument is not developed further, for example by pointing out that the widespread acceptance of the practice means that there would be significant implications/disruption/cost involved in abandoning the tradition. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Adherence to policy (WP:TITLEFORMAT) in the absence of a compelling reason not to is sound logic. Several editors have refuted the idea that the move to a capitalized form would be consistent with the current policies and guidelines that have been outlined here. Of course, we can also ignore all rules, but these editors have also thus far rejected the argument that the presented reasons to ignore the article title policy are particularly compelling in this case (ad populum? special pleading?). Beyond that you are simply asking for WP:CONLIMITED, which again, conflicts with both policy (WP:CON) and the ArbCom decision linked at CONLIMITED. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, no matter how many fallacies you think you've discovered. After all, the NCCAPS defenders are specifically attempting to avoid the propagation of logical inconsistencies. Dekimasuよ! 23:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Saying we should do something because we have because there isn't any proof that doing something else might be better (regardless that it obviously won't do any actual harm, considering Civil Rights Movement is a redirect to here) is sound reasoning to you? On an encyclopedia that claims to be WP:BOLD no less? Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a non sequitur; your analysis mischaracterizes the argument that was presented (ignoratio elenchi), which was not "no proof something else might be better." The argument was, roughly, "consistency is better." As for WP:BOLD, I do not think it means what you think it means. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Coffee: you said yesterday that you were fine with Dicklyon's compromise at the top of this section, but we still seem to be arguing over the capitalisation issue, and you've been reverting changes to portal and project names elsewhere as well. Are you happy with the compromise move to Civil rights movement, or aren't you? I get that Civil Rights Movement is your first choice, that's fine, but it doesn't look like that is likely to get consensus at the moment. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
For the portal and project that I myself created after this site's existence for nearly two decades, no I am not willing to change the name. For this particular article I give a secondary preference for "Civil rights movement" and a first preference still to "Civil Rights Movement". Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Your "secondary preference" fits en.wp style, as described at MOS:CAPS. Drop the WP:OWN issues, and let's move forward. By the way, there were a lot more style fixes in what you reverted than just the portal title caps. Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This RM is moving forward, and I just read some good evidence for upper-casing on an editor's talk page that I hope they bring here (EDIT: editor Bruce Hartford, the founder of Civil Rights Movement Veterans, allowed me to being his comment here. See 'Support by proxy' above for his statement in support of upper-casing). As for own, the term "Civil Rights Movement" was in the title of this page for most of its existence, and had been stable for a long time until the November RM which incorrectly lumped all of the upper-cased titles together as if they were equally the Civil Rights Movement. The reason it is a proper noun is because of the difference between this page and the others. This page shows what occurred when a relatively very small group of people studied Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, went to Myles Horton's classes, many then studied with James Lawson, and then they all learned about Gandhi's nonviolent movements and the basis of his nonviolent strategies. The best of them took all of this knowledge, practiced it, then refined it, and, in purposely stating their objective of ending legal segregation in the United States, they carried that ever-expanding-with-experience nonviolent knowledge across the South and then brought it to Chicago, and between 1960 and 1968, attained their objective. That's why it is a proper noun and the other named civil rights movement pages are not - it was an unprecedentedly quick attainment of large-scale societal change in a nation's legal system accomplished by the people in leadership by working on known-and-new techniques of nonviolence to which thousands of other people then responded. That's why upper-case Civil Rights Movement directs here, why a Google search shows us the name that the movement is best known under, and why the people arguing for it believe that it should be moved to the reasonably truncated form of the very stable upper-casing of the name that the article had before a couple of months ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Randy Kryn, I'm been at arm's length from this because style issues just aren't my thing, but you are getting way over the line—and corrupting your own argument—with this blatant WP:SOAPBOX and non-NPOV. I find it very alarming.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
As it stands, this discussion is not an RM. In either event, your argument for the importance of the movement is repetitive (everyone agrees, I hope, that the movement was incredibly important). If the sources don't say to capitalize (how many times will you say that Google searches show this, when it's been shown they do not?), then we are not here to right great wrongs. I'll just start copying and pasting from above. Unless we are going to discuss fundamental flaws in Google Ngrams, there is no getting around this distribution. This is the definition of going around in circles. Dekimasuよ! 22:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Correction: This is an RFC regarding a RM. And the result will decide whether the article name is changed or not. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Call it a discussion about naming, then. It ceased to be an RM when the RfC tag went up. We can go to WT:RM and ask someone to close this as an RM, if you like. If it had remained an RM it would already be closed as no consensus to move. But as has been mentioned here by a few editors, the best way to move this forward would be to withdraw the RfC and initiate a normal WP:RM with a request to move to the uncapitalized title. As an RfC, it certainly hasn't attracted a lot of outside editors to the discussion, and it's not been very collaborative in tone, either. Dekimasuよ! 23:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure whatever admin closes this will be able to discern that there is at least a consensus for changing the title to a form of "civil rights movement", rights now we're attempting to hammer out the reasoning for not capitalizing what appears to be a proper noun/term, for a specific movement. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Also this Ngram shows a much different picture than the one you are using. I would also like to point out a simplistic reason for the increase of non-capitalization of the term: it is sometimes referred to informally. Just as we wouldn't decapitalize I Have a Dream because of this Ngram either. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it doesn't show a much different picture. In each case, "civil rights movement" is at the top at .000180, and "Civil Rights Movement" is down at .000060 (the fourth line on your ngram). That's exactly the same for both graphs. The second link is not relevant. Dekimasuよ! 23:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The second graph is very relevant. How is it not, when it shows the fatal flaw in your search: civil rights movement can refer to many movements, while Civil Rights Movement refers to one thing. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
In any discussion of the I Have a Dream speech, it is likely that the text of the speech will be cited, and in the text of the speech it will be capped as part of a quotation: "I have a dream that...." Whereas this ngram shows that "I Have a Dream speech" is more common than "I have a dream speech." In fact, ngrams show that things like this are the reason "I have a dream" gets more results than "I Have a Dream": see this ngram. As for what you call the fatal flaw in my argument, it is precisely something I said above that was never taken up meaningfully by anyone who supports a move to the capped title, when I wrote: Again, I think it might be useful to attempt a more nuanced argument: that the capitalized title "Civil Rights Movement" is WP:PRECISE, while "civil rights movement" is ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 23:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The question of ambiguity is precisely my point. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view, we should probably close this RFC now and restart it as a new normal RM for the lower case version Civil rights movement, see if we can get consensus for that, as right now this conversation is going nowhere, the above survey shows no consensus, and following the out-of-process change from an RM to an RFC, it's not even clear how it will be resolved. And this shouldn't be an RFC, because we're not discussing any substantive issues, or changing any guidelines, we're just discussing the title of the article, which belongs in a normal RM discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
That is entirely irrelevant to the comment I made, and it's simply not going to happen. Additionally, this is actually the graph I intended on pointing out... it shows that the use of the term (we can assume Civil proceeds Rights Movement, based on this search) changed drastically in capitalization only after the 90s. Which means for most of the Movement's actual living history it was referred to as "Civil Rights Movement". You can't argue with those facts no matter how hard you try: civil rights movement may refer to many movements, but Civil Rights Movement refers to this article's subject specifically. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
[Reinstating comment which was accidentally removed by Coffee ] Fine, consider it a new comment rather than a reply then, but my point still stands. We're wasting our time, because the conversation is going nowhere, the argument is going round in circles, and we would do well to try to agree on Dicklyon's compromise, to overcome the objections above saying this article shouldn't be moved at all.
Just to address the ngram above though, it doesn't look to me like it backs up your theory that this is the Civil Rights Movement while others are civil rights movements - "rights movement" is ahead of "Rights Movement" for every different variant shown, except for "in the South", and even then the two are basically neck-and-neck recently. Meanwhile, the two entries for rights movement in the Soviet also show them neck-and-neck. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
And again you're missing the point. Also, just because you and I are seemingly going in circles, it doesn't mean everyone is or will. This conversation is bigger than me and you. So no, this remains the RFC that it is. Stop repeating that you think we should close this ad nauseum. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Any outcome that allows this article title to remain as is will be in violation of WP:Common name. It has been demonstrated which term is the common name for this event here. African-American civil rights movement is ranked ninth by the number of hits on Google Books. All hits on Google Books equal 1,014,560 hits. The term Civil Rights Movement (lower and upper case combined) is ranked first and accounts for 65.7% of all hits. Mitchumch (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This, too, has been covered already (e.g., adding another word to a search will automatically get fewer results; conversely, "civil rights" is not a better title for this article just because it gets more hits than "civil rights movement"). When they are found to be beneficial for precision, descriptive titles are not deprecated (WP:NDESC, on the same policy page you cited). WP:COMMONNAME actually states that "[Ambiguous] names for the article subject... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The current title is a descriptive title, in use in order to be precise enough to identify the subject and scope of the article. Whatever else this may be, it is not a "violation" of WP:COMMONNAME. If and when the page is moved somewhere, it is next to inevitable that the scope of the article will become less clear. Dekimasuよ! 07:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Dekimasu The term "Civil Rights Movement" on Google Books has 667,000 hits. While the term "the Civil Rights Movement" on Google Books has 632,000 hits. That term remains the most prevalent term used to denote this historical event. Again, you claim it is an "[Ambiguous] name" without identifying other social and/or political movements that use the WP:Common name of "the Civil Rights Movement". You've used the Northern Ireland civil rights movement as an example. That term has 4,540 hits on Google Books. You need to demonstrate that the term "the Civil Rights Movement" is used more frequently than "Northern Ireland civil rights movement" to be the "Common name" for that movement. You told Coffee, "You mentioned a good number of specific books that use the term "Civil Rights Movement," but not with any reference to the total proportion of reliable sources that use the term in caps or otherwise." I need you to provide proof from WP:Reliable sources for your claim. Mitchumch (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This has already been adequately satisfied above. There is an attempt to turn this around to ask for my evidence, but I am not particularly making a claim nor trying to make a change to the current title. You say that I'm making a claim that the term is ambiguous; I am not, in particular, although it seems that Coffee is. What I said was, if a change to the status quo is to be made, the burden is on those supporting the change to provide proof; and if the most common name is to be used, it should be unambiguous. Your evidence does not show that anything is unambiguous, but rather that the term "the civil rights movement" is used in a variety of contexts. This has been pointed out to you by Alanscottwalker and others. As far as the capitalized term goes, I have to cite myself above again: "WP:NCCAPS says 'For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence.' The argument being made by Dicklyon and several others here is that this is not the case for the topic of the current article. Although (for the third time? [fourth now? fifth?]) I dislike NCCAPS, this is not really helping the argument here. Again, I think it might be useful to attempt a more nuanced argument: that the capitalized title 'Civil Rights Movement' is WP:PRECISE, while 'civil rights movement' is ambiguous." Mitchumch, you seem invested in the idea that "civil rights movement" is not ambiguous (since you have mixed the two throughout, or have relied on Google searches that are not case-sensitive). If that's the case, there is no rationale for using the capitalized form that is also a rationale in line with the naming conventions. By the way, since this page is on my watchlist, I will see responses; I would rather not be pinged to reply to each new response. Dekimasuよ! 19:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested a close[edit]

I asked for a close at WP:Requests for closure. But a formal close does not actually seem unnecessary, since this is no longer a listed RM, and since there's obviously no consensus result here. If someone wants to propose the alternative as suggested above, go ahead and open a new RM. Otherwise, this is done, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RFCs last for up to 30 days. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
And I'll disagree about a no consensus result. At a minimum the consensus has settled on one of the two forms of CRM, either upper-cased or lower-cased. The amount of evidence provided for upper-case, by Mitch and others, seems adequate. As for participation and keeping this open, has anyone pinged the participants of the late 2014 RM as yet, which was the RM which kept the stable upper-casing before the late-2017 change? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of reopening this can of worms, where has Mitchumch presented any case-sensitive evidence at all? Dekimasuよ! 17:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia article with the WP:Common name of "Civil Rights Movement". And no editor has presented any social or political movement, either in the United States or around the world, that uses the term "Civil Rights Movement" as a common name. Therefore, the term denotes a unique historical event. By definition the term "Civil Rights Movement" is a proper noun. Proper nouns are capitalized as a rule. Mitchumch (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
By that logic, all non-disambiguated titles on Wikipedia should be capitalized. Setting aside whether or not the case that it's unique has been proven, being precise enough to denote a unique topic (historical or otherwise) does not constitute something becoming a proper name. Dekimasuよ! 21:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to set aside the fact the term is a unique term for an historical event. I'm still waiting for a list of Wikipedia articles or a list of social or political movements that has a WP:Common name of the "Civil Rights Movement". I don't know the source for your definition of a proper noun. Here are some Google Book hits with definitions in them here. The capitalization was only conditional upon the term being a proper noun. Not "all non-disambiguated titles on Wikipedia should be capitalized" as you stated. Mitchumch (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I said to set aside, nor is that what being capitalized as a title is contingent upon, as has been explained at length. Let me know when there is evidence that the capitalized title is consistently used in reliable sources, because that's the standard. WP:MOS-CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." WP:NCCAPS: "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." Otherwise, there is no community consensus to capitalize based upon the naming conventions and manual of style; there is no local consensus to capitalize; and the RfC has not drawn anyone here who supports capitalization in the face of either of these. Dekimasuよ! 00:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I cannot refute that the lower case form is the most prevalent in reliable sources. However, I am not aware of any other proper noun for an historical event that is normally written in lower case in reliable sources. Do you know of any such terms? I think a case can be made that this term is an exception that warrants special attention in how the WP:MOS-CAPS is applied.
You have stated on a few occasions that you would use upper case if it was up to you here, "the ironic thing is that I'm inclined to agree with you that "Civil Rights Movement" is a better title." and here"The standard for capitalizing titles according to the current naming conventions and MOS (which, again, I am not a fan of; I would write Civil Rights Movement in my academic prose) is much higher than that"'.
I doubt you are alone in those sentiments. Mitchumch (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Here are a short list of some I might capitalize differently, but that follow guidelines: Stonewall riots, Dreyfus affair, Occupy movement, Hindenburg disaster, Gulf of Tonkin incident, September 11 attacks, Kent State shootings, Birmingham campaign, Arts and Crafts movement, Oklahoma City bombing. Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
At descriptive titles: 1992 Los Angeles riots, 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, etc. Dekimasuよ! 01:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't capitalize any of those. They are descriptors of actions or incidents, and in fact the upper-case Birmingham Children's Crusade is a better title for the Birmingham campaign. That's what makes the Civil Rights Movement different, it was a "thing", a one-of-a-kind planned and carried out long-term project to remove legal segregation in America. When it became well organized it took about eight years for the movement to create enough of a national dialogue so Congress could put new laws in place which ended legal segregation. I'm going to link a YouTube video here that someone recently sent me, an extraordinary 31-minute 1968 NBC television news interview with Dr. King in which he discusses and defines the event quite well. The reporter calls it the Civil Rights Movement right at the start, and that became more and more the common name of the project as the years and decades went by. And to mention again, the upper-cased "Civil Rights Movement" was stable in this title for a long long time, until a multiple-page RM was held last November which swept this one up in it. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The nice thing about having guidelines, of course, is that we don't have to rely upon personal opinions like the one you express here. There are a substantial number of "movements" on Wikipedia that have lowercase titles, and I'm sure the proponents of many of them made concerted efforts to expand their influence as part of long-term projects. In addition to the Occupy movement I linked above, here's what I found in two minutes: Illyrian movement, Woman's club movement, Free school movement, Chicano art movement, Goddess movement, Black Power movement, Objectivist movement, 9/11 Truth movement, Rastafari movement in the United States, History of the hippie movement. I'm not saying these were all as well organized or influential as this one. But that's not the standard they are being evaluated under. Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
All of the terms that you listed have Google Ngrams that demonstrate that they are normally capitalized within a sentence. The point I'm trying to make is the "Civil Rights Movement" is not treated like other proper nouns despite functioning like other proper nouns in reliable sources. My position is not a baseless position that only reflects a personal desire.
On a side note, the term "Dreyfus affair" is not the dominate form for that term. Both words are capitalized in Ngram. Here and here are the only page moves I found for that article. "Occupy movement" and "2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami" don't have a Ngram history due to the dataset ending in 2008 and those events occurring after 2008.
  • Stonewall riots [26] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Dreyfus affair [27] - not the dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Occupy movement [28] - no data on Google Ngram
  • Hindenburg disaster [29] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Gulf of Tonkin incident [30] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • September 11 attacks [31] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Kent State shootings [32] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Birmingham campaign [33] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Arts and Crafts movement [34] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • Oklahoma City bombing [35] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • 1992 Los Angeles riots [36] - dominant form on Google Ngram
  • 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami [37] - no data on Google Ngram
Mitchumch (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
You asked about unique historical events with "specific" names that do not qualify for capitalization under Wikipedia's standards, so I named some. The Ngrams you've listed show that many people do capitalize these titles (≈consider them proper names), but we still go with the preponderance of sources. The Google Ngrams for the civil rights movement and civil rights movement show the same thing: some sources treat this as a proper name, but it seems that is not true of most sources (and you stated as much above: I cannot refute that the lower case form is the most prevalent in reliable sources). So I am afraid I don't understand what you are saying when you write The point I'm trying to make is the "Civil Rights Movement" is not treated like other proper nouns despite functioning like other proper nouns in reliable sources. I don't believe you're trying to get the title to reflect a personal desire, but I don't understand the rationale for ignoring the guideline and the data doesn't appear to show that this article is being treated differently from others. Dekimasuよ! 03:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
The list of terms you gave are nothing like "civil rights movement". All of the words in the term must be in lower case and used as a proper noun. That is what I meant when I said "the "Civil Rights Movement" is not treated like other proper nouns despite functioning like other proper nouns in reliable sources. Mitchumch (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Sources that do not capitalize "civil rights movement" are indicating that they don't see it as a weak proper name. Perhaps you are interested in WP:SMALLDETAILS, which would suggest any number of common name/proper name pairs. But that is only relevant if you are arguing that the same source may be referring to one subject as "the Civil Rights Movement" and another as "the civil rights movement," and I thought you'd rejected the notion that the phrase was ambiguous. Dekimasuよ! 05:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:SMALLDETAILS implies the upper case and lower case forms have two separate meanings. Within the preponderance of reliable sources, both forms are used to denote one meaning - a unique historical event. Therefore, that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply here.
Your assertion regarding weak proper names implies the possible use of the article "the". Do you think the article should be titled "The Civil Rights Movement" or "The civil rights movement"? Mitchumch (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Randy Kryn: there is no way this can possibly be seen as a "no consensus" close, there is an almost unanimous consensus that the current title does not work, and likewise high consensus for a name that is either "Civil rights movement" or "Civil Rights Movement". The closer will have to decide which of the two titles (caps or no caps) is closest fitting to sitewide consensus and compare that to the arguments laid out here. But, a "no consensus" close this most certainly is not. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misrepresenting the source[edit]

I added a sourced statements the lead, with citation, [38] Randy Kryn then made edits that then misrepresent the source. Don't misrepresent sources, that's a POV and V problem. Neither the Oxford encyclopedia nor the Encyclopedia Britannica take the limited view Randy Kryn seeks to promote. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You put up a "cites needed" tag for the years '1954-1968' - these are the years this article covers. There was no agreement during the discussion to change the definition of this page, it covers those years, and has been stable in covering those years. Just because the name has been shortened doesn't mean the scope of the page has changed. And for sources, the main historians should be among those cited if any cites cover the lead (David Garrow, Taylor Branch, Adam Fairclough, etc.). Here is an interview link (NBC and Dr. King) which should cover calling it a nonviolent movement. It was never anything but a nonviolent movement. I would think that changing major points of a lead would be questioned on any major page, picking a source and changing the direction and definition of such a critical article and an era in the world's history should be discussed at length. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It was previously focused on those years because those years were in it's title - you have clearly not addressed anything with respect to your POV of the movement that neither Oxford nor Britannica support. Don't POV push. And don't change sourced sentences to say things the source does not say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Point by point please. And consider removing my name from the section head if you would, which does create a confrontational spirit to the discussion. As for the non-neutrality tag, this page has been non-neutral since I first saw it, it's a mishmash of POV pushing from many editors throughout the years. Maybe you or someone can watch the King interview link above and add some of that. I've actually tried not to dig into the page and edit it to a POV, although I did work on the lead a few months back. I do have a personal "map" of the Civil Rights Movement in my understanding of it, which is why I really have not tried to shape it. But that it was a nonviolent movement is central to the understanding of the page. And yes, the years have been stably defined as 1954-1968 notwithstanding the shortening of the name. (EDIT: actually the lead is shaping up a bit with what you left and added). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, this scope problem was foreseeable. In fact, it was foreseen: [39] [40] [41] [42]. It seems like this needs to make at least some effort to be a parent article now, given the title change. Because it's so long already, it may need more daughter articles to compensate. Dekimasuよ! 17:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to return to the point of disagreement between Randy and Alanscottwalker. The words "broad term" and "efforts to secure human rights" seem to be the point of contention. Am I correct Alanscottwalker? Mitchumch (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The nub of the disagreement as far as I can tell is keeping the time period when we are now covering "civil rights movement", which sources admit of broader time periods: Oxford calls it an "umbrella term"; and human rights was already in the article. I changed:
The Civil Rights Movement (also known as the American civil rights movement and other terms[n]) was a human rights movement from 1954–1968 that encompassed strategies, groups, and social movements to accomplish its goal of ending legalized racial segregation and discrimination laws in the United States. The movement secured the legal recognition and federal protection of all Americans in the United States Constitution and federal law.
to
Civil rights movement (also known as the American civil rights movement and other terms[n]) is a broad term for the efforts to secure human rights for African-Americans that encompassed strategies, groups, and social movements to accomplish the goals of ending legalized racial segregation and discrimination in the United States, and secure full citizenship.[Wendt, Simon. Civil Rights Movement: in 1 Encyclopedia of African American History. Oxford University Press. 2009. p.411] The movement secured new legal recognition in federal law and federal protection of all Americans, regardless of race.
Which also has the advantage of not saying things like 'civil rights movement' is a 'movement for civil right' (also because we dropped African American, from the title we need to mention it early). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
That's why plenty of editors pointed out that the term 'Civil Rights Movement' is a capitalized proper noun, and it was a stable capitalized noun for years until last November's catch-all RM. The noun refers to the period when the same people organized what became known as the Civil Rights Movement which began in 1955 with the Montgomery Bus Boycott (another proper noun that was changed here to lower-case). King, Abernathy, Shuttlesworth, Lowery, and a few others organized SCLC from the effects of the Bus Boycott, then King called for full voting rights in a 1957 speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Enter the student movement which, from 1959 to 1962, ran the Civil Rights Movement, with James Bevel eventually emerging as the main strategist and organizer of the student movement. King asked to meet with Bevel at the suggestion of James Lawson. They met, agreed to work together but without restricting or having veto power over each others work, and then, from the Mississippi organizing right into Birmingham, then the Alabama Project which became the Selma Movement, then into Chicago in 1965 and '66, Bevel not only came up with every successful strategy but ran and directed the subsequent movements right up until he and King went into and ran the anti-war movement for a time. Proper noun, same people, effective and evolving nonviolent strategy, and before very long the Civil Rights Movement and the US federal government (Congress and administrative) managed to end legal segregation - just as they set out to do. Before 1955 there were things like the Brown v. Board decision, the Till publicity, and quite a few other events, but those were not an organized attempt to end legal segregation. When a small set of people got together (and I would put the Nashville Student Movement as a 'Top' level article for the Wikiproject Civil Rights Movement - and let's not forget Clara Luper! - and I hope that you and others join the Wikiproject, it could use your energy and focus), used Gandhian nonviolence as their tactical heart and soul, they organized (the youngsters nowadays would say "launched") a quickening series of events to accomplish exactly what they set out to do. Deciding to make his a lower-case noun was what confused the chronological timeline of the topic, yet, as I mentioned, the RM didn't change the topic it just shortened the name of what should be an upper-case noun. The Wikiproject has it right. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker The CRM is an historical event. What start date and end date are you proposing? Mitchumch (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"The same people..." In 1954 MLK was still in divinity school and I'm pretty sure that James Bevel was in junior high.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why 1955 seems the "start" year of the actual CRM. Bevel was 18 and just in or out of the Navy in '54. By the same people I meant the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56, which was organized and run mostly by people who stayed with the movement throughout, and then when the students took over in late 1959 they ran the thing for the next few years until Bevel "jumped" from SNCC to SCLC, which irritated quite a few SNCC activists. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Bevel "jumped" from SNCC to SCLC, which irritated quite a few SNCC activists. Actually I think they were more upset that he took Diane Nash with him. Funny that you never mention her Randy Kryn.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
He didn't "take" Nash, she joined SCLC as well. Bevel's main accomplishment occurred after the Nashville Sit-ins, chaired by Nash, and continuation of the Freedom Rides, which Nash spearheaded. Bevel organized things from there, and Nash continued working with him and his projects until after the Chicago Open Housing Movement. She's a major historic figure, and was there when things were accomplished, although Bevel did the initiating, strategizing, directing, and taught the movements participants how to do what they did. Thanks for mentioning her. Other major people that Bevel and Nash worked with include King, Horton, Lawson, Vivian, Lewis, Lafayette, and many others. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

(e/c):::::According Oxford and Britannica in their civil rights movement articles (Oxford, is titled CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT so does not have to deal with the caps thing in the title but the first line of the article is "Civil rights movement . . .") we have to deal in this article with, the African American office holder's of Reconstruction, the campaigners against lynching, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the 20/30s labor movement, the National Negro Congress, the March on Washington Movement, the federal Fair Employment Practices Committee, the WWII Congress of Racial Equality sitdowners, desegregation of the armed forces, etc, all before 1954 (Eg before Brown, there was Sweatt v. Painter, and there was Shelley v. Kraemer, etc) as one of the sources cited in the move discussion said "the civil rights movement did not suddenly spring up in 1954 or 1955". Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There are already articles here for the pre-1954 years. This page is for the success. We are not Oxford or Britannica, and even with a flawed CRM page, it is still more accurate than those. The RM was to correctly name the "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968)" page to "Civil Rights Movement", not to change its topic (and check out Canada's Noble v Alley). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
No. Multiple reliable sources show your contentions have no basis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
See America in the King Years series by Taylor Branch. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Also Bearing the Cross by David Garrow, the television documentary series Eyes on the Prize (with its first episode entitled "Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years 1954–1965"), and most other major CRM works which do limit the CRM years to this time period. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker You missed my question. The CRM is an historical event. What start date and end date are you proposing? Mitchumch (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I already said what this needs to cover based on encyclopedic sources about the civil rights movement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
You've only listed individual events. I'm asking you to state the time frame you are proposing. I can't discern your proposed dates from a list of events. Mitchumch (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually I have listed movement organizations, activists, labor and federal actions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Same difference. Do have a proposed time frame? Mitchumch (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I think I have been more than clear - we cover what the encyclopedic sources cover - and they cover what I have briefly outlined. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the world's largest and likely most accurate encyclopedia. I don't understand why you would say we follow rather than lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Come on. By policy, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
How does the discussion of the Long Civil Rights Movement figure into this discussion? Please see Google Books here and Google Scholar here. Mitchumch (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a theory by Jacquelyn Dowd Hall. See the [award winning books by Branch, Garrow, and others, the tv series, and other sources I link to above. And thanks for the flow to the JD Hall page, lots of italics to add! Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Taylor Branch has gotten some nice pop-establishment awards, but he's always received mixed reviews from serious scholars:

[There has been] criticism of Branch’s narrative as analytically inadequate to explain the social and political trends that defined the period...Branch fails to acknowledge adequately the important role played by [ black militants and nationalists ] in both in the wider context of American history and the Civil Rights movement.

Also, Eyes on the Prize has a second series which goes up to 1983, an illustration that there is no consensus on precise dates, and we ought to stay away from them, just as most of the academic encyclopedias do. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Tangentially. When we cover topics we cover them NPOV, so if there is a real need to go into multiple interpretations we go into them, but since we already have multiple high quality neutral encyclopedic examples of what to cover, we do well to follow those. We are not doing the Original Research, ourselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by "multiple high quality neutral encyclopedic examples". Wikipedia should never be used to write Wikipedia articles. That is why it is expressly forbidden to cite Wikipedia articles as stated in WP:USERGENERATED.
My point of bringing up the Long Civil Rights Movement is to show that there is an existing body of literature surrounding the very question that this section is debating. The best solution for this debate is to solely defer to the academics and cease using misconceptions or personal beliefs about the CRM. Using misconceptions or personal beliefs is how the article was titled "African-American civil rights movement" despite being a relatively unused term to denote the CRM as I shown here. Mitchumch (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
What? Seriously? How can you not know what I am talking about - I have mentioned Oxford and Britannica several times. And I have already in this discussion rejected using Wikipedia for anything. What are you doing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
If you would like to get into the weeds of Long Civil Rights Movement what makes sense is to go to that article and fill it out.
As the Civil rights movement article topic is necessarily high level WP:Summary we may then ultimately add a bit here - for now, we can just treat the Civil rights movement article encyclopedially, since we already know how that is done in the real world of RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
My misunderstanding. I thought you were referring to Wikipedia articles as the "multiple high quality neutral encyclopedic examples".
I think you are raising an important concern surrounding the CRM in regards to its start and end date. Popular knowledge about the CRM and academic knowledge do not mirror each other. I think it would be fruitful to turn this discussion into an attempt to answer basic questions about the CRM as reflected in monographs, journal articles, thesis, dissertations, and printed conference papers. To my knowledge, there are around 100 general and specialized encyclopedias that have an entry on the CRM. I think a survey of the literature is needed along with a section on Historiography and the Civil Rights Movement. Mitchumch (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, for now the solution does not seem complicated. We already have established some things: 1) modern encyclopedia have written about this topic, so we already have a corpus of encyclopedic information to relate; 2) There is an academic debate, which is not surprising, given academic debate; 3) It is most unlikely that anyone who seriously addresses the issue will say this topic is like a war, where they can say there is a first-shot-fired in 1954, and if they do, they will be disagreed with by multiple other sources - because we already have those sources, who do not treat it like that; 4) It is most unlikely that anyone who seriously addresses the issue will say the movement is like a political party or an organization, where they can say something like, 'In 1954, Mr. _____ founded the civil rights movement' and if they do, they will be disagreed with by multiple other sources - because we already have those sources, who do not treat it like that.
Since we already know the hard-line is unsupported and contradicted, we should not now in the current form, have that part that is now in the first paragraph of this article[43] -- it needs to be modified or changed -- I proposed a way to do that that is sourced, subject appropriate, and policy compliant (and general enough for intro). (As for 'historiography' -- eg. 'the story of telling the story'-- might I suggest a separate article, again, and then we can perhaps work some of it into this article?) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this summary. Dekimasuよ! 17:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I accept that you believe the several claims you made to be true. However, nearly all of your claims are not self-evidently true. The two encyclopedia articles you presented do not provide conclusive evidence to support your claims.
We need to determine through the preponderance of reliable sources what the consensus is among academics. This work has never been done. Academics on the CRM routinely state the year or decade the movement started and/or ended. I see no reason why Wikipedia cannot do so as well. Mitchumch (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
All I have said is supported. Flying in the face of reliable sources, you claim work has not been done (which were it true means we can't write anything because we cannot do Original Research), but it's incontrovertible that modern scholarly work on the civil rights movement surveying scholarship has been done by Oxford and Britannica. You make a vague assertion, about 'the year or decade' which admits the 1954 year is controverted by scholarship - a decade is not a year. And nothing you say controverts the source you have previously expressly relied upon that "the civil rights movement did not suddenly spring up in 1954 or 1955" - thus, the unsupported assertion in the lead paragraph has to go by every content policy Wikipedia has V, NPOV and OR. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The body of literature includes the Garrow, Branch, and dozens of other books that "pin" the years to somewhere between 1954 and 1968. Those are not only sources, but major scholarship sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
We are writing an tertiary encyclcopedia article, which means we have to write it encyclopedically. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Garrow's book is a political biography of Martin Luther King, and doesn't pretend to be a full picture of the movement.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery, sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center and recognized as one of the few major Memorials to the Civil Rights Movement, is defined on its article page as The names included in the memorial belong to those who died between 1954 and 1968. The choice of years is not surprising or given to much argument. The time period and era known as the Civil Rights Movement, as defined by that page and this page is between 1954 and 1968, the time period that accomplished the goal of ending legal segregation in the United States. Per Julian Bond's speech at the dedication of this esteemed and important Memorial: "In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled against segregation's legality. Soon a movement arose to challenge its morality as well." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Not even that memorial agrees with itself, it has additional memorial to "the forgotten" going back to 1952. But more importantly for our purposes, it is not an academic survey of the civil rights movement and our topic is not a list of martyrs. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The only pre-1954 death mentioned in "The Forgotten" is the tragic death of a man shot down by a policemen because a bus driver said he didn't pay his fare and then wouldn't get off the bus. Not an activist or Civil Rights Movement related, unless to show the stupidity of pre-Civil Rights Movement actions and events which cheapened life because legal civil rights were never "fought for" and achieved. The legal barriers were then strategically and nonviolently faced and removed, with honor and courage, in the well-organized and well-run Civil Rights Movement soon after the Supreme Court knocked legal segregation down about a hundred pegs with its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Again no. Your lack of perspective is not even supported by modern American High School Advanced Placement coursework on PBS, let alone other reliable sources: "The Civil Rights Movement: . . . This video covers the people and events that caused sweeping reforms and civil rights laws. It begins in 1909, with the establishment of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and follows through to the mid-twentieth century" --[44] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And PBS also ran the Eyes on the Prize program, so they are at odds with themselves. ASW, can you please restrain yourself from again making this discussion personal. My perspective is fine from many points of view, please don't pretend it's not. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Well it's not personal, so sorry, but I have tried to stress again and again, per policy, we are not to be writing one POV. Even your assertion, "they are at odds with themselves", were it true, would support my position because we write WP:NPOV. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. There are probably hundreds of examples of contradictory sources on Wikipedia which don't extend an article's scope. The sources for the years of World War II, for example, are also contradictory. In the area of precedent, this page was stable and labeled, aside from capitalization disagreements, 'African American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968)' until literally a few days ago. The scope was stable and limited to those years. The name change did not, nor was meant to, change that, as it was understood what was being decided and what to call the movement of 1954-1968. The page already goes into background, even in the lead, and the background is fully covered by another page. The confusion emerges from the closer's decision not to upper-case the proper noun naming this movement when in fact it is discussing a proper noun, or at least was understood by its participants as deciding between upper and lower case for the name of the event. Going off-line now, happy St. Pats to ya! Randy Kryn (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The scope was previously delimited by the WP:NDESC title. It was pointed out during the discussion that the scope would change, as I said above: [45] [46] [47] [48]. At least five editors above noted that a title change would result in broadening the scope; Coffee was also open to this. When you don't have a descriptive title, you have to rely upon all of the sources. I don't see a reason why an introductory subsection that deals quickly with early years and points to the daughter article can't be incorporated into the article where "The beginnings of direct action" is now. Then the scope of the article can remain nearly the same without making explicit reference to certain years. Dekimasuよ! 01:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The encyclopedic sources seem fine with treating the movement episodically, what they don't support is not treating the movement wholisticly. The explicit contention in this article that there was no movement until Brown, makes nine white men the makers of the movement -- they were not, they did not even come into the role they played in deciding the case but for multitudes of African-American people, who had fueled the movement, and fought long and hard before 1954, and yes, with successes (and defeats), even before Brown. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's called 'background', which this article discusses. Background doesn't mean something has the same name. The organization run by editor Brucehartford (who I wish would join discussions and the WikiProject), Civil Rights Movement Veterans, places the movement years between 1951-1968. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
No. Actually, per reliable sources, it's called 'civil rights movement'. And even that group's POV disagrees with the POV pushing assertion in this article. The defense of the current language in the lead has no basis, and is getting worse, and worse all the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminding editors in this discussion of the RM/RfC close[edit]

Closing this RM/RFC. There is consensus that it is appropriate to move the article, as the great majority of references to 'civil rights movement' are referring to this period, and the point some editors made that the term currently redirects here is very persuasive. Although there are other movements around the world that are about civil rights, the arguments around WP:COMMONNAME are similarly persuasive. So, we have a consensus to move to the more concise name. It is pointed out that there is already a hatnote at the top of the article, pointing towards civil rights movements, which covers other such movements.

The closer understood what the RM meant. It was about the name of the period 1954-1968. Both lower and upper case 'Civil Rights Movement' already redirected to the article about those years -- this one. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not, unless you are contending the closer is incompetent - RM closers do not decide matters of article content and closers most certainly are not reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, a reminder. This was an RfC close. The closer found that the move of the name covered the same years as the name of the article in question, 1954-1968. Since another RfC can't be held for awhile (unfortunately, as I would like to address the lower-case error as soon as possible) a workable suggestion may be to change the two other civil rights movement (lower-case) pages for consistency, but keep the years in the titles for all three (in parenthesis). When eventually upper-cased as a proper noun (i.e. see: Landless People's Movement, Homeless Workers' Movement, Landless Workers' Movement, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign), which it stably was for the vast majority of this pages existence, then it won't need the years descriptor, just as World War I or World War II don't need years in the title to describe their span. In any case, the scope has been decided by RfC, and so-ruled on by the closer. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You have argued in this very section that the previous discussion didn't address the scope, in which case the close should have no effect on how the scope is defined going forward. The closer was talking about defining the topic precisely in opposition to other civil rights movements, etc, so "this period" may have meant any number of things to the closer, including anything as vague as "the twentieth century" or "the mid-1900s." The close did not say anything about 1954 or 1968. In either event it wasn't the topic of the RfC; I would say we could ask the closer for clarification, but the period covered by the article wasn't to be mandated by RfC, so there's little point. Also, any subsequent question about changing the title should be done through WP:RM, not the RfC process. I cannot understand why it would offend you to have this be the parent article for all related articles. Dekimasuよ! 23:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course it addressed it, by Coffee's wording of the RM/RfC itself: African-American civil rights movement (1954–1968) → Civil Rights Movement – This is seemingly the most proper term for the movement, and is also the most common way the movement is referred to/searched for. Seeing as Civil Rights Movement already redirects here, I don't see why this would be controversial. Which the closer then affirmed. What I meant was that the question was closed because that was already explicit in the wording of the RM. X to Z, years spelled out as implied and thus included. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It befuddles me that you are making claims that the RfC close must be obeyed as it pertains to things tangential to the main topic of the discussion, while at the same time you are explicitly asking for the close to be overturned. Dekimasuよ! 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no "tangential" about it. The RM/RfC was to change the name of the page but explicity kept the scope of the page - the defined years. What I asked to change was the lower-case to the correct upper-case, per Landless People's Movement, Homeless Workers' Movement, Landless Workers' Movement, and Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The title change eliminated the part of the title that was descriptive (WP:NDESC), and as a result the scope must be determined by how the title is used in reliable sources. Your continued references to what is "correct" are indicative of an unwillingness to hear the other editors here. I ask that you reread WP:NOTIGERS. You appear to accept aspects of the RfC close that you agree with, and reject the aspects you disagree with. That is an impossible path to dispute resolution; talk pages are not themselves an exercise in civil resistance. Alanscottwalker has asked that the scope be determined by verifying how it is defined in reliable sources. This is not only reasonable, it is what is required by our policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This is nonsense, Randy. There is no "explicitly" anything. Implicitly the title describes some years that overlap with your faves, but it could mean 1948-1969, or 1955-1968 (your old fave, before you were reminded about Brown and Mamie Til), or 1960-1972. The Age of Imperialism, Age of Enlightenment, Age of Revolution and the Renaissance are all proper nouns here, but they don't have specific dates defining them. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
My comment about 1955 was because it was the year that actual organized "movement" activity was attempted on a large enough scale to make a difference - the sustained withdrawal from using a product, the Montgomery Bus Boycott. 1954, which is the scope of the page moved after the RM/RfC by Coffee, is fine and well accepted as the 'start' of the successful movement due to Till and the Supreme Court saying legal segregation had to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
You are saying it is "fine and well accepted" because you reject the veracity of reliable sources that disagree with you. WP:TERTIARY says: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Alanscottwalker has shown that the years you cite are not how Britannica or Oxford treat the movement. Your reply was simply, "We are not Oxford or Britannica." WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If what you assert is "fine and well accepted," it should be easy to show that with reference to a strong majority of reliable sources. Otherwise, saying that something is "correct" and "accepted" is not helpful when you can see that other editors are disagreeing with you here. Dekimasuよ! 01:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dekimasu GPRamirez5 Alanscottwalker I'm trying to figure out what each of you want to happen in concrete terms. I understand Randy wants to leave the date range as is on the article page. I am opposed to an unstated date range as I do not see that reflected in reliable sources. Also, please specify what is to happen to the 1865 and 1896 articles. I'm not seeking an argument. Only a concise statement of what each of you want. Randy, if I have misunderstood your position, then please correct me. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

1) I have already said how I think we should use Oxford in the first paragraph.
2) I have already expanded the second paragraph going back to Reconstruction, we probably need a sentence or two more just there on 'WEB Dubois and forward'.
3) As we already have the other articles, we can treat them WP:Summary style in this article, each with a section, and a 'Main' or 'Further' article pointer at the top of each section (which in general would be rearranging what we vaguely call "background", now) -- and I have already specifically laid out things to highlight. (Note, this point 3 is only referring to the two articles, '65 and '96 -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC))
4) We can leave the bulk of the lead and article, well above 50%, to the 50s and 60s. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This appears to be reasonable to me. I believe this article, because it is now at the base title, must serve as the parent article for the others. Clearly the scope must be determined by due weight as assessed via reliable sources. Dekimasuよ! 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
5) I should perhaps mention something about dates, in case it is unclear -- there will remain in the lead plenty of date makers (and it will be plainly clear to the reader that most are the 1950s and 1960s). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, to remind editors, the RM/RfC was worded to change the name of the article which covered the Civil Rights Movement from 1954 to 1968 from 'African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968)' to 'Civil Rights Movement'. The closer confirmed this scope, although they lower-cased the name (which is causing confusion among some editors). To change the scope in the way some editors are proposing would take either another RfC or to organize the good faith proposed editorial and layout changes previous to 1954 as 'Background'. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
No. We do not need another RfC, and there is plainly nothing in the that RM about any section, "Background" - that is not what an RM is -- so the closer could not have addressed it, and they certainly could not have addressed any question of content, without being utterly incompetent, and apart from that odd procedural claim you make, there is no reason anything has to be called 'background' --Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
As shown throughout this section, the closer did not "confirm the scope" and that's not how scope is determined: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT. Repetition of your contention does not make it the case. The start of WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Dekimasuよ! 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to rehash any arguments here. I only want to summarize everyones positions in a clear and concise manner to see where things stand now. There is no need to challenge any positions stated here as this has already taken place above. GPRamirez5 What do you want to happen in concrete terms? Also, please specify what is to happen to the 1865 and 1896 articles. Thanks everyone. Mitchumch (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
With the exception of 3), I like Alanscottwalker's frame. The problem I have with reliance on pure summary and forks is some parts of this article are necessary synthesis and/or bridging between events. A good example is the "'Rising Tide of Discontent' and Kennedy's response" section. We don't have a main article on what happened nationally in the months after Birmingham (yet), but it's generally acknowledged that it was one of the most intense periods of the movement. There are main articles on Gloria Richardson, the Cambridge Riot of 1963, the Baldwin-Kennedy meeting, the Stand in the Schoolhouse Door, the assassination of Medgar Evers, the Civil Rights Address, and so on, but it'd be too much to give each of those their own section, and the synergy between them within a single month in June 1963 has been noted by historians many times. Similarly, the Robert F. Williams section isn't so much about Williams as it is about the role of armed self-defense in the movement, and the Malcolm X section is about the rise of black nationalism in the movement more than it's about a single person.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
GPRamirez5 My point 3 is only intended to cover the question that was posed about the two articles, the 1865 article, and 1889 article - so I don;t think point 3 effects any of your points (I have clarified point 3 above). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker thank you for making that clear. I support your proposal then.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
? Why would anything happen to the 1865 and 1896 articles? They are fine as is, although Coffee's name change, which was reversed, should be the subject of an RM. What we are engaged in is a "What if?" game among a limited amount of editors. To make any kind of change would require another RfC as, yes (one editor is fond of saying "No"), the scope of the page did not change in the last RM, per the wording of the RM and per the close. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Repeating this does not make it so. Further, to the extent that any editorial decisions are involved, editorial decisions can and should be made through normal discussion without resorting to RfCs, unless the process of discussion is derailed by intransigent editors. Mitchumch is trying to find a consensus solution (your position is clear; he asked to hear the position of others). You seem to be the only editor pursuing a filibuster. We know your position on the RfC, but that position is contrary to policy. Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the lead, for the most part, is fine now, and fits with the close. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
But, your arguments are not consistent. Multiple times in this discussion you have argued this very civil rights movement article already covers pre-1954, and multiple times you have argued that we have two other articles to cover the earlier civil rights movement. Your objections to my organizational proposals substantively make little sense. In actuality, you don't actually object to covering anything I have suggested covering, here in this article, nor do you have a real scope objection, since you already have argued this article, forever, has covered pre-1950s. (After all, who could possibly and with principal, object to mentioning Dubois and the NAACP in the intro, here -- Rosa Parks was organizing for the NAACP in Alabama the early 1940s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC) here.

Movement participation numbers[edit]

W. Haywood Burns estimated in 1963 that between 1960-1963, 70,000 people had participated in nonviolent public protests for African-American civil rights, and 6,000 distinct participants had been jailed.[1]

References

  1. ^ Carter, A. (2013). Direct Action and Liberal Democracy. Routledge. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-135-02734-6. 

I thought this might be helpful to this article. While I realize it might be nicer to have a later historian, I think Burns is a reliable source and some numbers are better than none. Daask (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Span of civil rights movement[edit]

At one time, there was a discussion/dispute about the use of 1954 or 1955 and 1968 as the movement's starting and ending dates. (For some reason I can't find it in the talk page archives.) Anyway, Peniel E. Joseph has an op-ed column in today's Washington Post in which he refers to "the civil rights movement's heroic period, which span the years between the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision and the April 4, 1968, assassination of Martin Luther King Jr."[49] If the question comes up again, that's a source that can be cited. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote is a bit long isn't it? Wouldn't linking to the dab page be enough? Seraphim System (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)