Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) / Atlanta (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlanta task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

"p." versus "pp."[edit]

"p." means "page" and "pp." means "pages". I'd have thought everyone learns that in elementary school, but I had to correct a bunch of these in this article and I see lack of understanding of this surprisingly often in Wikipedia articles. 2601:445:4001:273E:B4F5:D15C:122F:23B7 (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

CAPITAL LETTERS[edit]

Couldn't the title of this article reasonably be African-American civil rights movement (1954–68) or at least African-American Civil Rights movement (1954–68)? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2016[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. The issue is clouded by the interpolation of two different questions - capitalization and the disambiguator. The first issue has been discussed before, but perhaps after a wait of a few months, a new move discussion can resolve it finally, and then a separate discussion can be carried out on the disambiguator issue. bd2412 T 23:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)African-American Civil Rights Movement – The proposed title redirects here, indicating it as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If that's correct, the page should be moved over the redirect. If not, the redirect should be converted to a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

initial Support, and will watch the discussion. Although other pages carry that name with various years added, the only proper name seems to be this one, and the title could also be just 'American Civil Rights Movement', '1950s and 1960s Civil Rights Movement' (maybe the best of the lot), or simply 'Civil Rights Movement', which also redirect here. Randy Kryn 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Support, but prefer Civil Rights Movement There are 61 redirects for this article. Being a redirect does not prove a particular title is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only WP:RELIABLESOURCES can prove the primary topic. I have encountered around 19 unique terms to designate this article topic. Based on Google N-Gram they are as follows in order of most used to least used:
  • Civil Rights Movement
  • American civil rights movement
  • Second Reconstruction
  • Modern Civil Rights Movement
  • Civil Rights Revolution
  • Black Revolution
  • Black Freedom Movement †
  • Black civil rights movement
  • Black Freedom Struggle †
  • U.S. Civil Rights Movement
  • 1960s Civil Rights Movement
  • Negro Revolution
  • African American civil rights movement
  • Negro Revolt
  • Southern Freedom Movement
  • Black rights movement
  • United States civil rights movement
  • American Freedom Movement
  • Negro Freedom Movement
Note: † means this term alternates in N-Gram when analysis is generated multiple times.
A Google N-Gram of the top six terms reveals that the term Civil Rights Movement is the term of choice and overwhelmingly used among the academic and scholarly community to designate this article topic. Also, there is no other event, neither in the United States or around the world, that is known solely as the Civil Rights Movement. Mitchumch (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Mitchumch Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Mitchumch, we might be talking about different conceptions of "primary topic". The way I use it is an observation, not a value judgment; since the undisambiguated title already redirects here, it is the primary topic. I don't understand your position, though. Are you arguing for a move to Civil Rights Movement, which I note also redirects here? If so, I would think you'd at least prefer the proposed title to the current one. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, I would support Civil Rights Movement as well, essentially for the same rationale as in the nomination. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: I do support a move to Civil Rights Movement. However, this title move is complicated by the use of the term African-American Civil Rights Movement in three articles, the term Civil Rights Movements used for another article, and a disambiguation page called Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation). Change one title and others require change. Mitchumch (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't follow. What other pages would need to be renamed? We'd need a more specific hatnote at Civil rights movements, and the fact that the dab has "disambiguation" in the title reflects that there's already an established topic (cf. WP:MALPLACED). If you're suggesting that this page being called Civil Rights Movement with Civil rights movements keeping its current title is problematic, I think we're ok, per WP:DIFFCAPS. --BDD (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@BDD: If you don't see a potential conflict or problem, then I support the move to Civil Rights Movement. You're probably more familiar with policy than I am. Mitchumch (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Count me in for Civil Rights Movement, which seems like the common name at this point. Randy Kryn 23:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I know on planet Wikipedia the term "Civil Rights Movement" and "African-American civil rights movement" are descriptive terms. However, in the real world of academia and scholarship, there is a discussion regarding the dating of the Civil Rights Movement. See the pivotal article by Hall, Jacquelyn Dowd (March 2005). "The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past" (PDF). Journal of American History. 91: 1233–1263.  An article online briefly discusses the impact of the article Greene, Robert, II (February 2, 2014). "The Long Civil Rights Movement and Intellectual History". Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Retrieved 15 March 2016.  Most discussions place the earliest time around the New Deal era. As an example, see essay by Sullivan, Patricia (1991). "Southern Reformers, the New Deal and the Movement's Foundation". In Robinson, Armstead L.; Sullivan, Patricia. New Directions in Civil Rights Studies. University of Virginia Press. pp. 81–104. ISBN 9780813913193.  Mitchumch (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Your last link is a dup; here's the intended target in google books. It's interesting that none of those 3 capitalize "civil rights movement". Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Thanks for the heads up - I fixed it. The link you posted spelled the term "civil rights movement" incorrectly. You probably meant this. As far as the capitalization of the term, I already know the predominant use of the term in N-gram is lower case. Mitchumch (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Dang-it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: lol. I still appreciate you. Mitchumch (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The original proposal seems to be flawed since it is based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is an editing guideline about disambiguation -- it seems like a backdoor effort to apply this to determing the title for one of the most significant American history articles on wikipedia. The applicable policy (policy trumps guidelines) that this discussion should be based on is Wikipedia:Article titles. The article we are discussing now, as written, states in the lead:"This article covers the phase of the movement between 1954 and 1968, particularly in the South." This being the case, the parenthetical "(1954–68)" expression is absolutely necessary to differentiate this article from African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95). The policy article is clearly on point when it states in its lead that, "Because no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name." Recent Rfcs proposing to change the titles to those articles failed. The conversation above suggests that the originator was ignorant of these two articles (he/she said "I don't follow. What other pages would need to be renamed?") despite the fact that both are clearly identified in the hatnote to this article.
Like most Americans, I don't need "African-American" to recognize what civil rights movement is being referred to. Similarly, I don't need American added to Civil War in order to recognize what that article is about. However, this is the English, not the American, wikipedia. Addition info is needed in the title and the consensus that has been sustained over several Rfcs in the past is to use "African-American" rather than strictly "American". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@North Shoreman: What other articles would be confused with the Civil Rights Movement? Here's what I found:
Articles with the term "civil rights movement" within their titles are:
Mitchumch (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, PRIMARYTOPIC is quite well established and referred to throughout WP:AT. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem with what you say is that WP:AT places many other requirements on naming an article that are not included at PRIMARYTOPIC. Your proposal does not take those factors into consideration. One factor is:
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
Stating what seems to me to be the obvious, since there are already articles titled African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) (covering the period from 1865-1895) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), covering the period from 1896-1954, it is not possible to logically argue that an article titled African-American Civil Rights Movement, covering the period from 1954-1968 "unambiguously identifies the article's subject." I would agree that if we had ONE ARTICLE (instead of three) covering the entire period from 1865 to 1968 that no parenthetical listing of the dates would be appropriate, but that's not the case we are presented with. The same logic shows that your proposal fails:
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
Again I appear to be stating the obvious, but how can you omit the time period from the title of the article when the first two articles do clarify the time period? One movement -- three different time periods but you only want to specify the dates in two of them. The alternative name proposal (Civil Rights Movement) also fails:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
To clarify further what I stated above, the term Civil Rights Movement could mean very different things to, for example, a Brit, an Irishman, a South African, or an Australian. Adding the term "African American" instantly lets people know that this article is NOT about Aboriginal Australians, Nelson Mandela, non-white immigrants to Great Britain, or the Northern Ireland struggles in the 1960s. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, the term "African-American Civil Rights Movement" or "Civil Rights Movement" denotes a specific event during the middle of the 20th century. For example, the American Revolution is a specific event. To create articles American Revolution (1765–1783), American Revolution (1784–1865), and American Revolution (1866–1968) would be an anachronism. I'm not sure why this has occurred with the term Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia, but it's the same scenario. Editors ignored WP:Reliable Sources when titles of these articles were created.
Scholars and academics use the term "Black Freedom Struggle(s)". It is often used in association with the "Civil Rights Movement" (Google Books). However, it appears acceptable among scholars to apply the term to any period of African-American history, from colonial period to the present time.
See Carson, Clayborn (1986). "Civil Rights Reform and the Black Freedom Struggle" (PDF). In Eagles, Charles W. The Civil Rights Movement in America. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. pp. 19–37. ISBN 9781604738124.  Mitchumch (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
"a specific event during the middle of the 20th century" I disagree. it was a "Second Reconstruction" -- an explicit continuation and restoration of the 13th-14th-15th amendments. Rjensen (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Scholars and academics use the term "Second Reconstruction" to link the Reconstruction Era with the Civil Rights Movement. However, I am not aware of the scholarly/academic community asserting the Civil Rights Movement started in 1865 or 1896. If that is what you are asserting, then please list Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to support this claim. Mitchumch (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
ok Here are ten representative scholarly articles re movements for black civil rights in late 19th century :
1. "Free At Last? African American Civil Rights 1865-1980" by: Murphy, Derrick. Modern History Review (Nov 2001)
  • Do you have a quote for this?
the author wrote the title giving the dates. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(2). "The Origins of the African American Civil Rights Movement, 1865-1956," Journal of American History. Dec 2003
  • Do you have a quote for this?
the author wrote the title giving the dates. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(3). "Rights and the Constitution in Black Life during the Civil War and Reconstruction" Foner, Eric. Journal of American History (Dec 1987)
  • Do you have a quote for this?
the author wrote the title giving the dates. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(4) "San Francisco Black Churches In The Early 1860's" By: Montesano, Philip M. California Historical Quarterly (1973) Historical Period: 1860 to 1869. "the three black churches in San Francisco represented the interests of the city's black community, providing spiritual leadership, economic assistance, and aid to Freedmen. They also resisted attempts to deny California blacks their civil rights."
  • This quote DOES NOT appear to support claim the CRM started in the 19th century. Why do you think it does?
I never made any such claim. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(5) Creating "What Might Have Been a Fuss": The Many Faces of Equal Public Rights in Reconstruction-era Louisiana"; By: Kressel Itkin, Beth. Louisiana History. Winter2015, Vol. 56 Issue 1, p42-74. "The article focuses on the enactment of the equal public rights law in the state of Louisiana during the Reconstruction era and its implication for the civil rights movement during the 19th century."
  • This quote DOES support claim the CRM started in the 19th century.
(6) "Repression, The Judicial System, and Political Opportunities For Civil Righits Advocacy During Reconstruction" by Barnes, Donna A. & Connolly, Catherine. Sociological Quarterly (Spring 1999) "Exploring the role of the Supreme Court in constraining federal intervention in response to white supremacist violence during Reconstruction reveals that Supreme Court decisions played an important role in defeating the Reconstruction-era civil rights movement by minimizing the likely benefits to be gained from civil rights advocacy."
  • This quote DOES support claim the CRM started in the 19th century.
(7) "The African American Saga from Enslavement to Life in a Colorblind Society"by Abel, Yolanda; Johnson, LeRoy. Black History Bulletin (Fall 2013): "The author divides the Civil Rights Movement into two phases: the Reconstruction period from 1865 to 1877 and the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education period from 1954."
  • This quote DOES support claim the CRM started in the 19th century.
(8) "Black History and the Reconstruction Era" by Foner, Eric. Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture & Society (Summer 2006): "understanding the Reconstruction era is key to comprehending the historical shift represented by the civil rights movement."
  • This quote DOES NOT appear to support claim the CRM started in the 19th century. Why do you think it does?
I never made any such claim. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(9) "Reconstruction Reengineered: Or, Is Doubting Black Suffrage a Mistake?" Fitzgerald, Michael W. Journal of the Historical Society (Sept 2012) "The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments could not have been enacted in any other way, and it is difficult to envision the civil rights movement without them."
  • This quote DOES NOT appear to support claim the CRM started in the 19th century. Why do you think it does?
I never made any such claim. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(10). "The Pennsylvania State Equal Rights League And The Northern Black Struggle For Legal Equality, 1864-1877." By: Davis, Hugh. Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography (Oct 2002) "Black leaders to form organizations to work toward legal equality during the 1860's-70's. The Pennsylvania State Equal Rights League lobbied hard as part of a broad-based interracial effort."
  • This quote DOES NOT appear to support claim the CRM started in the 19th century. Why do you think it does?
I never made any such claim. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I noted three sources that support your claim.
I never claimed CRM "started" in 19th century. I said these articles show there was an active CRM in the late 19th century. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm also aware numerous states throughout the US enacted public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws beginning with Massachusetts in 1865 and especially after the USSC eviscerated the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in the Civil Rights Cases (1883). Please see:
What you are describing is the "Black Freedom Struggle". The issue I'm focused on is individual scholars or academics that assert the Civil Rights Movement started in 1865 or 1896 do not espouse community consensus on the topic. The community consensus is the Civil Rights Movement started no earlier than the Great Depression period. Here is an excerpt from Lawson, Steven F. (2003). Civil Rights Crossroads: Nation, Community, and the Black Freedom Struggle. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 22–23. ISBN 9780813126937. ,
"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 or 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 Fairclough, both in his study of Louisiana and his survey of 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 Reverend 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."
Sorry for the length. Mitchumch (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The difference between the pre-1955 "movement" and the Civil Rights Movement which occurred between 1955 and 1967 centers on an identifiable small group of activists who learned, practiced, and expanded on the nonviolent knowledge and tactics of Jesus, Mohandas Gandhi, and America's founding documents to intentionally create intense local and nationwide dialogues which they knew would soon result in ending all or most forms of legal - and illegal-but-tolerated - segregation in the United States. These few individuals rallied and inspired others to participate in pre-action nonviolent education training and then in a highly visible series of public actions which accomplished, in a short period of years, their stated goals. Randy Kryn 16:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course there are differences in the direction that the movement took in different time periods. We have three different articles covering three different time periods for a single movement. Absent, at the very least, a renaming of the earlier two articles or, at the most, a complete rewrite that clearly (and inaccurately IMO) shows something ended in 1954 and something totally new started in 1954, much of this discussion is irrelevant to the question presented by this Rfc. The proposal to rename only one of the three articles is poorly thought out and creates more problems than it solves. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@North Shoreman:@Rjensen: The Civil Rights Movement did not start in 1865 or 1896. To suggest it did is a violation of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. This policy states,

"Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,(See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, in particular Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight.) and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."

Mitchumch (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So you say. The fact is, however, that there is a longstanding consensus of over a decade to divide the movement into three time specific articles. This Rfc is about renaming one of those articles AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN -- not the place to argue that all three articles need to be rewritten to support your POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@North Shoreman: What reliable sources are you relying upon that states the Civil Rights Movement started in 1865 or 1896? Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source. Quoting passages from a Wikipedia article does not satisfy the question I'm raising. Mitchumch (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The question you're raising is irrelevant to this Rfc. In fact, the two earlier articles are fully sourced with examples of African Americans engaged in Movements to obtain basic Civil Rights. You are trying to argue for renaming articles based on some future version of the articles that there is no existing consensus to create. In fact, a very strong consensus AGAINST the same arguments you are making here was rejected (see Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress) a mere two months ago. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree totally with Tom that "African Americans engaged in movements to obtain basic civil rights", except that the bold is sufficient emphasis and the capitalization dilutes the point that people break up and describe these movements in different ways. We can reconsider how we do it in WP, but that's not really going to make a difference as to whether any of the descriptive titles are proper names, because they're not. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
That's kind of like saying that some "Americans" were not being "civil" while a few of them engaged in "war" at some time during 1860 and 1865. Of course Civil Rights Movement when applied to the main 1950s-1960s movement is a proper name. Randy Kryn 19:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
If it's a proper name, what is it the proper name of, and why do we use it so many other things? And if it's a proper name, why do way more than half of reliable sources not capitalize it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a proper name for "social movements in the United States whose goals were to end racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans and to secure legal recognition and federal protection of the citizenship rights enumerated in the Constitution and federal law." Besides simple carelessness, it may be uncapitalized because context makes it clear. References to the "civil rights movement", for example—an option largely unavailable to us here because of WP:THE. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Historians agree there were organized movements for African-American civil rights before 1954. Lots of them, hence we have three long articles divided chronologically. (the division points are the three most famous episodes--13th Amdt, Plessy, Brown). The term "Civil Rights" comes from the Civil Rights Act (of 1865-66). The one in the 1950s and 1960s was the culminating success story and gets the name: "THE Civil Rights Movement." It seems odd to capitalize "Civil Rights Movement" in one of the sequence of articles but not the others. However that name is ambiguous because overlaps with the similar name for movements for other minorities (women, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans, disabled etc). So the current arrangement of Wiki titles is a suitable and non-ambiguous arrangement, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Response to various points:

  • Capitalization BDD and Randy Kryn. Dicklyon is correct on its usage by the scholarly community. Lower caps is the most prevalent form used in scholarly and academic literature. N-gram displays this very clearly. However, to use capital letters to distinguish the period 1954-68 from the two periods from 1865-53 is unnecessary because the scholarly community doesn't use that term. To imply otherwise is Wikipedia:Fringe theories.
  • Proper name Dicklyon The bigger issue is using the term Civil Rights Movement as a descriptive term or proper name for other movements and during other time periods. I would like individuals making that claim to state the specific movement and specific time period that it's being used for. My research shows the Civil Rights Movement is the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for one movement during the 20th century in the United States.
  • Equality before law, rights of citizenship, and suffrage People of African descent have fought to maintain or attain their rights from the colonial period thru to the present. Hence, 1865 is two centuries late. The term the scholarly/academic community uses is "Black Freedom Struggle", not "Civil Rights Movement" or "African-American Civil Rights Movement". To suggest otherwise ignores this body of literature.
  • 1865 and 1896 Again, beginning this fight for civil rights in 1865 is two centuries late and ignores the academic literature on this subject.
  • Etymology of the term "Civil Rights Movement" I welcome any reliable sources on this aspect of the movement. Rjensen what reliable sources are you relying on for the claim the term "Civil Rights" comes from the Civil Rights Act of 1866?
  • Term Civil Rights Movement is ambiguous This claim is false. The following terms redirect here without any issues:
  • Overlaps with other movements This claim is false. I disproved this claim with my post dated 01:23, 9 May 2016 shown above. That overlap is non-existant.
  • Current arrangement The current arrangement is not based on reliable sources. It's based on popular knowledge, supposition, preconceived ideas, conjecture, and guess work about the term Civil Rights Movement, movement history, and movements from other cohorts of the United States and overseas.
This article topic suffers tremendously from editors not relying upon reliable sources. I challenge everyone participating in this discussion to post reliable sources so everyone can see where you are drawing your claims from. Unsourced claims aren't advancing this discussion.
Rjensen I may disagree with some of your claims. However, I want to express for the record that when you list multiple sources to support your claims I am tremendously appreciative. Those sources both inform and shed insight on your claims. They have helped me change my arguments, my positions, and my thoughts on the topics we discuss. So, thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
My own logic goes like this: 1) start with "Civil Rights Movement" focused on African Americans in the middle 20th century; 2) the problem is that there are numerous other civil rights movements in the United States (for women, Hispanics, Native Americans, gays, etc) and in other countries. Solution = the title "African-American Civil Rights Movement." 3) As a historian I'm very impressed with the long history that goes back indeed to the colonial era. Many historians have emphasized the critical importance of the Reconstruction amendments as the foundation for the 1960s, as well as the early 20th century efforts by the NAACP and other groups to fight for civil rights that led to the Brown decision in 1954. Result is a very long article. 4) split the article according to critical dates, such as 1865 (13th amendment & "Civil Rights Act"), 1896 (Plessy decision) and 1954 (Brown decision). Result now is exactly what we have, which I think works fine. 5) Should each word be capitalized or should we go with "African American civil rights movement (dates)". either way works, but I find a justification for all capitals since the third era is always capitalized. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: "numerous other civil rights movements in the United States"
  • There are no other minority groups on wikipedia that uses the term "civil rights movement" in the article title. Nor are they the WP:COMMONNAME in scholarly literature. I demonstrated this on an above post dated 01:23, 9 May 2016. There is no disambiguation with other minority groups. The only country with the term in its title is Northern Ireland civil rights movement. At the most "American civil rights movement" is needed. Please prove the existence of this disambiguation issue.
  • The term "African-American civil rights movement" is rarely used by scholars/academics in reference to the Civil Rights Movement. It ranks 13th in comparison to other terms more commonly used by scholars. I demonstrated this on an above post dated 20:29, 6 May 2016. You can plug those terms into n-gram to double check my claim.
  • The two articles for African-American civil rights movement dated between 1865-1953 is not accepted by the scholarly community. The term "Black Freedom Struggle" is accepted by the scholarly community. Also, that scope needs to be expanded to include the colonial era up to 1864 and then from 1969 to the present. Otherwise, no mention is made of any efforts by the African-American community to preserve, protect, and attain their rights. Mitchumch (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a well established scholarly literature re "civil rights movement" for other groups esp Mexican Americans & the disabled: here are a dozen cites: 1) Shapiro, Joseph P. No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement (Three Rivers Press, 1994); 2) Driedger, Diane. The last civil rights movement: Disabled Peoples' International (Hurst & Company, 1989); 3) Orozco, Cynthia E. No Mexicans, women, or dogs allowed: The rise of the Mexican American civil rights movement (University of Texas Press, 2010); 4) Meier, Matt S., and Margo Gutiérrez. Encyclopedia of the Mexican American civil rights movement (Greenwood 2000); 5) Rosales, F. Arturo. Chicano! The history of the Mexican American civil rights movement (Arte Público Press, 1997); 6) Chavez was "the 'mystical' and 'earthy' leader of the Mexican American civil rights movement, and the Chicano Martin Luther King Jr." in León, Luis D. "Cesar Chavez in American Religious Politics" American Quarterly (2007); 7) George I. Sánchez, "Ideology, and Whiteness in the Making of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement, 1930–1960" Journal of Southern History (2006); 8) Hing, Bill Ong, and Kevin R. Johnson. "The immigrant rights marches of 2006 and the prospects for a new civil rights movement." Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (2007); 9) Orozco, Cynthia E. "The Origins of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement in Texas...1910-1929" (PhD UCLA 1992); 10) "this began to change during the Mexican American civil rights movement from 1965 to 1975" in Espinosa, Gastón. "“Today We Act, Tomorrow We Vote”: Latino Religions, Politics, and Activism in Contemporary US Civil Society." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (2007); 11) " The 1930s also saw the early origins of the Mexican American civil rights movement" in Lukens, Patrick D. A Quiet Victory for Latino Rights: FDR and the Controversy Over" whiteness" (U of Arizona Press, 2012). Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: Listing instances of a kind is not the same as listing prevalence of a kind.
The WP:COMMONNAME for Mexican American Civil Rights Movement is Chicano Movement. N-gram shows Chicano Movement is the most prevalent term and overwhelmingly used by the academic community. There are 80,600 Google Books' hits for books that use Chicano Movement. There are 7,330 Google Books' hits for books that use Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. There are 8,270 Google Scholar hits for journal articles that use Chicano Movement. There are 785 Google Scholar hits for journal articles that use Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. Examples include:
The WP:COMMONNAME for Disability Civil Rights Movement is Disability rights movement. N-gram shows Disability rights movement is the most prevalent term and overwhelmingly used by the academic community. There are 22,700 Google Books' hits for books that use Disability rights movement. There are 623 Google Books' hits for books that use Disability Civil Rights Movement. There are 8,060 Google Scholar hits for journal articles that use Disability rights movement. There are 188 Google Scholar hits for journal articles that use Disability Civil Rights Movement. Examples include:
The WP:COMMONNAME for these groups demonstrate why there is no disambiguation issue on Wikipedia for the term Civil Rights Movement. This also applies to women, LGBT community, Asians Americans, Native Americans, etc. Mitchumch (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
You miss my point. You argued before that titles like "Mexican American Civil Rights Movement" can be ignored and now you discover there are 7000+ books and many articles. That is too much of an overlap with the African American movement. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: In order for there to be a disambiguation issue or overlap issue the WP:COMMONNAME for two or more article titles must be the same. Hence, the need to add distinguishing terms to the title. Where is the disambiguation issue in Chicano Movement and Civil Rights Movement? Or, Disability rights movement and Civil Rights Movement? There is none. I have never argued that the term "Mexican American Civil Rights Movement" does not exist among the academic/scholarly community. I said "Mexican American Civil Rights Movement" redirects to Chicano Movement. And I said the WP:COMMONNAME for "Mexican American Civil Rights Movement" is Chicano Movement.The term Civil Rights Movement already redirects to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68):
Please prove disambiguation with Wikipedia links to the specific article you are referring to. I challenge you to find other minority groups with this disambiguation issue. Mitchumch (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
no you are mixing up a) title of one article with 2 possible names; b) very similar titles of two very different articles. a name mentioned in 7000 books is indeed a "common name." You are saying that only the MOST common name requires clarification but that is an odd restriction. Our goal of course is to help the readers of those 7000 books straighten matters out. The rule deals with most-common-name when it comes to choosing a title for the Wikipedia article versus the 2nd-most-common name for the SAME thing. Here we are dealing with very different movements with a common name CRM. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I'm not mixing up anything. You are ignoring the 80,060 books for Chicano Movement. That term is used on Wikipedia because that term is the WP:COMMONNAME, not Mexican American Civil Rights Movement. And, the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement term exists on Wikipedia as a Wikipedia:Redirect. There is no disambiguation issue with Chicano Movement. For example, Mercury can refer to Mercury (element), Mercury (mythology), or Mercury (planet). The solution was to add another term to Mercury. That issue doesn't exist with Civil Rights Movement and other minority groups. It's a disambiguation solution in search of a disambiguation problem. Mitchumch (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
7000 books create a problem for CRM. you're mixing up a) one topics --2 possible names for it; b) two very different topics that overlap in their name CRM but not in their content. the Mercury example fits b) and calls for two different but similar titles Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: There is no article on Wikipedia called Mexican American Civil Rights Movement, only as a Wikipedia:Redirect page. According to WP:DABPIPE, "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." The "certain exceptions" appear listed under WP:DABREDIR.
Do you think the article Chicano Movement belongs on the Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation) page? I don't see a disambiguation issue here. Mitchumch (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
on a related issue: here's how a new encyclopedia treats the CRM: by periods similar to ours: Encyclopedia of American Social Movements ed by Immanuel Ness. (Routledge 2013) pp 107-258 = chapters: on Civil Rights Movement: Introduction; Civil Rights Movement, 1865–1910; Civil Rights Movement, 1910–1930; Civil Rights Movement, 1930–1953; Civil Rights Movement, 1954–1970; Civil Rights Movement, 1970–1990; Civil Rights Movement, 1990–2000; Civil Rights Movement, Twenty-First Century. at Amazon Its entire table of contents for 4 volumes is of relevance here. Rjensen (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica uses one long article divided into chronologial sections similar to our approach: title = American civil rights movement Written by: Clayborne Carson TABLE OF CONTENTS "Introduction Abolitionism to Jim Crow Du Bois to Brown Montgomery bus boycott to the Voting Rights Act From black power to the assassination of Martin Luther King Into the 21st century" Rjensen (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen:
  • The Encyclopedia of American Social Movements is a great find. I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy. The outlining of the movement appears novel (1865-present), but I'll need to read the entry.
  • I've seen the Encyclopedia Britannica entry. I found its treatment of the CRM disappointing, especially since Clayborne Carson wrote the entry. The sections "Abolitionism to Jim Crow" and "Du Bois to Brown" appear to be more of a prelude section than a statement that the CRM started during abolitionism. The first two sentences state, "mass protest movement against racial segregation and discrimination in the southern United States that came to national prominence during the mid-1950s. This movement had its roots in the centuries-long efforts of African slaves and their descendants to resist racial oppression and abolish the institution of slavery."
  • Have you ever used "Reference Universe"? According to a database description it, "Contains leads to over 18 million citations from over 40,000 titles representing over 750 reference publishers." I want to use this reference work as a better way redevelop the CRM article. Here are Google Books' links to various encyclopedias and dictionaries that treat the CRM.
I appreciate you taking the time to seriously engage me on the issues affecting this article topic. Mitchumch (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I did not know about "Reference Universe" -- thanks for the tip. I agree that we have a better article than Ency Brit, but we use a similar chronological division. Rjensen (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - However, the discussion appears to have to do with two unrelated issues. The first is the capitalization, and the second is whether to drop 1954-1968. I have no strong opinion on the capitalization. However, I strongly oppose dropping the 1954-1968 and making the post-1954 article primary, because the 1954-1968 era cannot really be understood without regard to the 1896-1954 era that ended in Brown v. Board, and to focus only on the latter period is ahistoric. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: The supposition that the CRM started in 1865 or 1896 has no consensus in academic or scholarly literature. Nor should ones imagination or personal desire be the source for this unsupported chronological arrangement.
The key point that I am making is that 1954 is only an intermediate event, not the start of a movement, and that is a point with which you have already stated your concurrence. I would comment that you are spending a considerable amount of energy in opposing anyone who only partly agrees with you, and so run the risk of alienating those who could support you or at least largely support you. Please pause and reconsider that you may accomplish more by reasoned persuasion that simply by complaining and arguing. (My guess is that you don't mean to come across as a complainer and arguer but as a reasonable student of academic and scholarly literature. You are coming across, at least to me, and I am prepared mostly to agree with you, as a complainer and a take-no-prisoners ideologue. Please take another look at your own tone.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UT
Here are some important historiographical essays by the scholarly and academic community about the CRM. It is this type of literature that should be the source for making the determination of the proper temporal scope of the CRM article.
The list is arranged in chronological order by publication date:
Mitchumch (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Close discuusion?[edit]

This RM discussion needs to be closed. 11 days have transpired with no resolution. I'm going to seek a closer if there are no objections. Mitchumch (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A discussion to delete the main template for this page[edit]

A move to delete the main template for this page was opened on May 17, please read and comment if you'd like. A little late, but still open as of now. Randy Kryn 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)