Jump to content

Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

List alternative events called explicitly "Civil Rights Movement"/"civil rights movement"

This talk page section is an attempt to identify other events, whether in the United States, or around the world that are known in academic or scholarly sources as the "Civil Rights Movement"/"civil rights movement". To be clear, the event must solely use the term "Civil Rights Movement"/"civil rights movement". The reason is to determine if there is a disambiguation issue with this term.

Please DO NOT use this section to discuss:

  • Alternative names for the "Civil Rights Movement"/"civil rights movement".
  • To identify movements that sought civil rights.

Scholarly or academic sources

Citation Quote Please sign & date your entry
Example:Crawford, Vicki L.; Rouse, Jacqueline Anne; Woods, Barbara, eds. (1990). Women in the Civil Rights Movement: Trailblazers and Torchbearers, 1941-1965. Indiana University Press. p. 219. ISBN 9780253208323. Retrieved 18 March 2015. Example:"The experiences of Doris Derby and Denise Nicholas in the Civil Rights Movement demonstrate two symbiotic ideas: African-American women's quest for self-definition and empowerment is often advanced by their political activism; and, African-American women involved in the ongoing struggle for ..." Example:Mitchumch (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Mitchumch (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be right and there may be a need for a disambiguation page (if suffrage movements, the gay marriage movement, equal education, women's rights, and other civil rights causes are listed), but the link and term 'Civil Rights Movement' should still redirect to this page. Randy Kryn 11:36 18 March, 2015 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: How many movements can you identify from scholarly or academic sources that only uses the term "Civil Rights Movement" to denote a unique movement? Mitchumch (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point, maybe only this one. An interesting question and section. Randy Kryn 12:37 18 March, 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: @Paine Ellsworth: @SMcCandlish: How many movements can you identify from scholarly or academic sources that only uses the term "Civil Rights Movement" to denote a unique movement outside the United States? This is in regards to your stated position in the discussion "Requested five pages be renamed and moved 27 December 2014 (see "Summary of positions" section) that the article should be titled the "American civil rights movement." I am not aware of other nations using the term "Civil Rights Movement" to denote a movement within their borders. I would appreciate any insight you can provide on this question. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments: This entire quasi-RfC is pretty bogus, in multiple ways.
    1. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? That's whole lot of elaborate table structure for answers no one is providing, to a question we don't even know has a positive answer. The "example" provided isn't even an example of what the question proposes exists, but clearly an example of "the Civil Rights Movement" being used in the typical context, that of the African-American civil rights movement centering on the late 1960s.
    2. I agree with Randy Kryn (on his one specific point immediately above, not his comments in previous discussions). In more concrete terms, this topic would clearly remain the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movement should continue to redirect here, and any such disambiguation page would thus necessarily be at Civil rights movement (disambiguation) and/or Civil rights movements, with the other of these two redirecting to whichever was chosen. If it were simply a list, use the former, but if at least a skeletal article were to be written about the concept, history, and nature of civil rights movements, use the latter.
    3. I also agree with previous discussions' comments (and large volume of evidence, which the closer essentially ignored) that this should not be capitalized as if it were a proper noun, especially on the basis of emotive non-arguments like "the movement was iconic", etc.; this is not how proper names work. Proof that Kryn, the principal advocate here of this capitalization, does not understand proper naming can be found in his earlier statement that some editor "is going after individual Civil Rights Movements", in which he capitalizes the phrase in its most generic sense that would include even civil rights movements that don't use the phrase at all.
    4. More to the point, we don't capitalize other political movements (e.g. Irish republicanism), even though their adherents almost always do, nor philosophical movements (e.g. existentialism), nor other sorts of movements such as major changes in popular music (e.g. rock 'n' roll), etc., etc. I think the sole exception on WP (which shouldn't be one) is art movements, but not even all of them (the cases of Art Nouveau and Art Deco in particular are downright stupid, since these are loan terms from French, which never capitalizes them, and both were initially France-centered art movements ... but I digress).
    5. This phrase, [c|C]ivil [r|R]ights [m|M]ovement, is generally capitalized only by leftists, along with Women's Liberation, and Pro-Choice Movement, in precisely the same way that right-wingers capitalize things like Family Values, Second Amendment Rights Movement, and Pro-Life. WP capitalizing these things, on either side, is clearly PoV-pushing. *# Furthermore, the requirement that Mitchumch has invented, that any given source "only uses the term 'Civil Rights Movement'" for a particular movement isn't even applicable to the subject of this article; it's also called the American civil rights movement, the African[-| ]American civil rights movement, the black civil rights movement, the freedom movement, etc., by various sources and audience, in both lower and upper case.
    6. Next, a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia is not limited to "scholarly or academic" sources, as Mitchumch would limited it.
    7. Finally, The argument, not far above this, that this article shouldn't have "African-American" (or "African American" as WP has been de-hyphenating it lately for some reason) in the title, because the civil rights movement was broader, is an argument for changing the scope and content of the article, and not a simple naming discussion. Kryn earlier lambasted me because he thought I was making the argument that this article should be broader than the African-American civil rights movement, but I did not; I simply observed that it could be.

      PS: I don't even know why I was pinged on this, since my previous comments were about article naming, and I never proposed anything like what Mitchumch is asking for "proof" of.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I will address your points using the corresponding numbered points.
  1. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? - I don't know what you mean by this. As for my example used in the template, I could not find sources that used only the term "civil rights movement" for a movement not associated with the U.S. movement. However, I wanted users to clearly understand how I wanted their response to be presented.
  2. I am interested in knowing what disambiguation issues exists with the term "civil rights movement." The article Movements for civil rights claimed, "The civil rights movement was a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." No source could be found to support that claim. Disclosure: On 18 October 2013 I edited the article Movements for civil rights to correct this problem and posted an inquiry similar to this one on that articles talk page on 12 October 2013.
  3. My inquiry did not mention nor ask a question regarding letter case used in the term "civil rights movement." Consequently, I will skip this point.
  4. My inquiry did not mention nor ask a question regarding letter case used in the term "civil rights movement." Consequently, I will skip this point.
  5. My inquiry did not mention nor ask a question regarding letter case used in the term "civil rights movement." As for the following statement, "the requirement that Mitchumch has invented, that any given source "only uses the term 'Civil Rights Movement'" for a particular movement isn't even applicable to the subject of this article." My original inquiry was, "To be clear, the event must solely use the term "Civil Rights Movement"/"civil rights movement". The reason is to determine if there is a disambiguation issue with this term." In order to determine if there is a disambiguation issue, I need to know what other movements only use the term "civil rights movement." The primary term used to refer to this movement is the "Civil Rights Movement." If there is evidence to support the claim that another term is the primary term used to denote this movement, then I would appreciate it if you could share those sources. As for the terms "American civil rights movement, the African[-| ]American civil rights movement, the black civil rights movement, the freedom movement" used to denote the civil rights movement, please see Google Books Ngram Viewer for results here.
  6. I never stated that reliable sources were defined by Wikipedia as limited to "scholarly or academic" sources. My inquiry narrowed the sources to academic and scholarly sources because the quality of such sources compared to other kinds of sources are among the best type. Secondly, this topic has a rich abundance of "scholarly or academic" sources. If you cannot find this type of source, then I would expect a reliable source from a news organization.
  7. "The argument, not far above this, that this article shouldn't have "African-American" ... in the title, because the civil rights movement was broader, is an argument for changing the scope and content of the article." I want to better understand this line of reasoning because I am not aware of this term being applied beyond the content of this article. I was hoping to learn from the sources users would cite.
PS: You were pinged because you took part in a recent discussion on a comparable issue. As I stated in my inquiry, your user id was listed under "Requested five pages be renamed and moved 27 December 2014 in the "Summary of positions" section as "Favor dropping "African-": RGloucester, Paine Ellsworth, SMcCandlish to an extent." I was interested in knowing the secondary sources for your position. If I annoyed you, then I apologize. Mitchumch (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keeping same format:
  1. I mean that there does not appear to be any assertion on the table, from any one, that any movement other than the subject of this article, is routinely called "the Civil Rights Movement" (capitalized or not, but singular and with "the"); rather, some question whether the phrase properly applies only to the African-American movement of the US or also to the larger "meta-movement" that grew out of it. A strong case can be made for the latter. In California, I'm surrounded by über-liberals, and they almost uniformly use it in the broader sense, unless they are themselves African-American, and some of those do as well. The cart is before the horse, because you're launching something akin to an elaborate RfC to prove or disprove an idea no one appears to have propounded. The premise is bogus, because no one's proposed any "alternative events" (your wording) that are routinely called "the civil rights movement" (orthography aside, but with "the"). Rather, the larger phenomenon, of which the African-American civil rights movement was the founding part, is usually called this. Lastly on this point, the fact that you're demanding people post responses in a specific format is weird and now how we generally do things here.
  2. That has little to do with this article, and is something that should be brought up at Talk:Movements for civil rights. (The article title Movements for civil rights is terrible, and clearly violates WP:COMMONNAME and possibly WP:RECOGNIZABLE, BTW. It's also unnecessarily long, compared to Civil rights movements. These, too, are matters for that article's talk page, and hopefully they'll be addressed there.) Regardless, that doesn't require an oddly formatted survey with a leading question that isn't addressing any concern anyone's actually raising. A regular talk page discussion is fine for that.
  3. You can ignore these points if you want to, but they directly impinge upon the underlying issues unresolved about this page, which I would submit are more important than the question you're asking. No one cares what color the napkins are in a restaurant that's on fire.  ;-)
  4. ditto
  5. ditto
  6. WP doesn't operate on made-up limitations of yours on what does or doesn't qualify as the kinds of sources we can use. You're just reaffirming my point without seeming to realize it. If you personally really, really care only what those kinds of sources say, that's a matter for you to do some research on; it's not a WP matter. (Similarly, I might really, really care what German music press sources, especially, say about electro-industrial music, but WP has no reason to care about those more than others, and I shouldn't start a discussion that genre article's talk page trying to get people to do special German research for me, especially if it were only to settle some personal doubt I had about disambiguation issues.) When it comes to social movements, your premise that such sources are of higher quality isn't likely to be valid, on this language-usage question, because such sources will use intra-disciplinary terminology in many cases, that may not reflect general usage; cf. the WP:Specialist style fallacy for various ways this effect can lead editors astray on WP. It's a frequent but serious mistake to assume that sources that, say, have better fact-checked and peer-reviewed research behind them are better in any way for how Wikipedia uses words and names. By way of another analogy, the best chef in the world is not a good source for advice on how to phrase my restaurant's menu, which is a public relations and psychology matter. In Korzybsky's terms, "the map is not the territory".
  7. I didn't argue pro or con either way. The only line of reasoning I have there is that this article is about the African[-]American civil rights movement of the US in the '60s, as the lead clearly states. An argument that it shouldn't be titled in a way that says so is either an argument that the scope of the article should change or that it somehow already has changed. I was trying to distinguish this issue from others, so it does not cloud disambiguation discussion. I've clearly failed at this, since Paine Ellsworth's comments below relate to changing the name and thus scope of the article to "American Civil Rights Movement", which isn't the same topic. Since we've arrived at this topic despite my attempts to push it aside, here's my take on it, FWIW: We do clearly need to have an article on the civil rights movement as a general Western cultural shift, centered on the latter half of the 20th century, and an article about the black civil rights movement of the US, peaking in the late '60s, andd an article on civil rights movements more generally. They're related topics, but not the same ones, thus not the same article. The root problem I see here is that from one perspective, the US black civil rights movement is one of many civil rights movements, and from another vantage point it's not just a civil rights movement among others, but the root source of the broader civil rights movement(s). Thus, some want/expect/interpret "the civil rights movement", with "the", and capitalized or not, to only refer to the African-American one. This is a WP:NPOV problem, even if there's a historical basis for the naming bias. The fact that this bias exists has already strongly affected all the previous and extant naming, renaming, scope, and disambiguation discussions. It needs to be teased out and resolved independently, or it will continue to do so.
I apologize if this comes off as argumentative, but I'm serious about these points, from a Wikipedian perspective. (And, no, I wasn't annoyed at being pinged, just wasn't sure why, since my previous input was on the MOS:CAPS issue.) I don't have a dog in the civil rights movement perception and PR fights (I'm a civil libertarian, and do have a strong position on CL issues, which don't overlap all that much with CR issues); my interest here is as an editor, not an advocate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for including me in this! If I understand this inquiry correctly, at this point I don't see a need for a dab page titled "Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation)" or a dab page that uses that title without the parenthetical dab qualifier. The requirement for such a page would only be satisfied if there are two or more pages on Wikipedia that are titled "Civil Rights Movement" or "Civil rights movement". All I see in the search engine are redirect titles that go to rights movements with different names, or titles that include "civil rights movement" as part of a page title rather than the full page title. So at this point there doesn't seem to be a need for such a page.

    I know of no reliable sources that support my opinion to rename this page "American Civil Rights Movement". That opinion was based on my belief that the ACRM was both supported by and helped much more than the "African-" prefix implies. It was also based on the fact that the term "African-American" came into popular usage after the dates of those articles, which made the term an anachronism in these contexts. Again, thank you for including me! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 22:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I am trying to learn if the stand alone term "civil rights movement" has a disambiguation issue? Specifically, has this term been used to denote other movements, either within the United States or in other countries, beyond the movement associated with segregation and voting rights. Thank you for your input. Mitchumch (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No-- the term is only used for the situation the United States after World War II. It is chiefly about blacks but has also been used for women and other minorities. HOWEVER it is used a great deal – Google scholar gives over 10,000 citations to books and scholarly articles published in 2014-15! see https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q="Civil+rights+movement"&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27&as_ylo=2014 Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The link you had didn't work, but I think you were trying to give this link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22Civil+rights+movement%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27&as_ylo=2014. Please let me know if that link is correct. Could you elaborate on the phrase, "has also been used for women and other minorities." Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes you now have the link. The women's liberation movement (led by whites) to a large extent emerged from what started as a largely black civil rights movement. see Peter J. Ling; Sharon Monteith (2014). Gender in the Civil Rights Movement. Taylor & Francis. p. 3. Other minorities, such as gays and Hispanics followed the civil rights movement closely and develop their own movement for civil rights using many of its ideas and methods. Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rjensen:Would a disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement" need to be created to direct a reader towards the appropriate article to learn about other minorities, including women? Or do each minority group have a unique term that is most associated with their respective organizing efforts? Mitchumch (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have no objection to there being a DAB page here called Civil rights movement (disambiguation) (with Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation) redirecting to it), if we have more than two articles on civil rights movements to which the phrase "civil rights movement" (with or without a leading qualifier) is applied in some sources, to which some non-trivial number of readers might apply such a term. DAB pages exist to aid readers, not as a form of labeling or categorization. It is not a requirement that we actually have multiple pages vying for the exact title "Civil rights movement". That's only one kind of case under which we'd create a DAB page, the other being when various readers are liable to end up at the wrong article. I would surmise that it's very likely that many people will be looking for information on the Western civil rights movement in general, and/or specific sub-movements (women, Hispanic, disabled, etc.), not just the original/leading African-American one. I also agree with the observation that the phrase "African-American" (hyphenated or not) does clearly postdate the actual movement, making "African-American Civil Rights Movement" (however capitalized or hyphenated) an anachronistic back-formation. That's not necessarily unforgivable; not all titles of articles here are those that make the most historical sense, but rather either reflect the usage in the majority of published sources, or sometimes are simply WP's own attempt at coming up with a title under which to put something hard to give a non-POV-pushing label to otherwise, though the latter type of case isn't all that common.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope I understand what you are saying, so please correct me if I have misunderstood any point. Let me address some of your points separately:

Are you proposing to retitle this article "civil rights movement" with the stipulation that this article be a Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC with a Wikipedia:Hatnote at the top of the article to redirect to other movements?
  • "if we have more than two articles on civil rights movements to which the phrase "civil rights movement" (with or without a leading qualifier) is applied in some sources, to which some non-trivial number of readers might apply such a term."
Currently, if someone were to perform a search for the term "civil rights movement" without a leading qualifier, then that person would be directed to this article. Currently, if someone were to perform a search for the term "civil rights movement" with a leading qualifier, then that person would be directed to a red link or another article (see sample searches below). If the article title were "civil rights movement" instead of "african-american civil rights movement", then that person would be directed to this article.
  • "the other being when various readers are liable to end up at the wrong article."
How will this occur? There is currently no disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement." Please see sample searches below.
  • " I would surmise that it's very likely that many people will be looking for information on the Western civil rights movement in general, and/or specific sub-movements (women, Hispanic, disabled, etc.), not just the original/leading African-Amerian one."
For this point, I want to focus on two phrases. The first phrase "Western civil rights movement" implies there are non-western civil rights movements. Are you able to identify any of these? The second phrase "and/or specific sub-movements (women, Hispanic, disabled, etc.)" implies there are other groups that use the term "civil rights movement". The following search terms entered on wikipedia produced the following results:

I genuinely do not know of a disambiguation issue. That's the reason I requested for users to post citations and quotes, list specific terms, or to identify specific groups so I could better understand the source of their concerns. As it stands now, Wikipedia does not have an article or a disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement. Again, I hope I understood your points correctly.

PS: I just noticed your new entry after I wrote this. Mitchumch (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Are you proposing to retitle this article "civil rights movement" with the stipulation that this article be a Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC with a Wikipedia:Hatnote at the top of the article to redirect to other movements?"
No. I think I was unclear when I said, "I have no objection to there being a DAB page here called Civil rights movement (disambiguation) (with Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation) redirecting to it)"; by "here" I meant "on Wikipedia", not "at this article". This article's topic isn't what most people mean by "the civil rights movement" (capitalized or not) generally, which is a broader topic, the history of which begins with the US black civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s, the topic of this article. In response to Ellsworth, I'm agreeing that there are enough things referred to as civil rights movements or the civil rights movement, at difference scopes of meaning, that some disambiguation page on the system would be useful; if Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movements redirect to the present article, it should have {{Redirect|Civil rights movement|Civil rights movement (disambiguation)}} at the top of it, and much confusion and subsequent editorial hair pulling would be forestalled.
Re: "How will [ending up at the wrong article] occur?"
It happens every time someone is looking for something other than the 1950s-60s African-American civil rights movement and they end up here, which is probably a substantial percentage of cases, given the prevailing use of the phrase in the American left to refer to the entire Western culture civil rights movement or meta-movement, up to the current day (and depending upon the user/audience, reaching back much further than the '50s, e.g. to women's suffrage, or even slavery abolitionism).
Re: "How will this occur? There is currently no disambiguation page for the term 'civil rights movement.'"
By creating "a DAB page here called Civil rights movement (disambiguation) (with Civil Rights Movement (disambiguation) redirecting to it)", as I said earlier.
Re: "[You imply] there are non-western civil rights movements. Are you able to identify any of these?"
I didn't imply that, I simply allowed for the possibility. Since you ask, the Arab Spring comes to mind, as do a variety of women's liberation efforts in Muslim countries, the freedom movement in the PRC brought to world attention by the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the movements to end the caste system and prejudice against Buddhists by Hindus in India, etc., etc. Whether they should or shouldn't be ID'd as "civil rights movements" is up to reliable sources (and probably better discussed at Talk:Movements for civil rights); editors here trying to decide on our own if they "qualify" or not would surely be a combination of point-of-view advancement and original research. This is all beside the point I was trying to communicate, that the phrase "the civil rights movement" in general usage today includes much of the human-centric part of the progressive political platforms in most Western (or Westernized) countries, and is neither limited to one "race", to a short time span before the 1970s, nor to the US.
I don't see the point of your red links. Everything mentioned at the poorly named article Movements for civil rights would qualify for the suggested disambiguation page, and the fact that this article is at such a contorted name instead of Civil rights movements, along with all these red links that shouldn't be red, very strongly suggests that someone is playing PoV-pushing games with the names of civil-rights-related articles, probably in an effort to stop the phrase "civil rights movement" from ever being applied to anything but the subject of the current article. I'd almost be willing to bet money on it.
At this point, I really feel like the discussion has become circular or at least overly repetitive. I'm not sure I have any point to make or concern to raise that I haven't already (many of them twice or thrice by now, despite our attempts to address separate matters as separate line items).
Ultimately, my ability to invest time and effort in helping you, individually, "better understand the source of ... concerns" has probably been exhausted. WP, including work on this and related articles, can continue without this understanding on your part, and this quasi-RfC of yours does not appear to be helping WP do this work (or helping you understand what you want to, for that matter).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
PS Now that I go looking, I've found the source of much of this confusion and dispute, and it's your own actions: Talk:Movements for civil rights#Propose name change to article title. You proposed a name change at that article, without following WP:RM procedure, and then unilaterally performed a completely different move, to usurp the article name Civil Rights Movement and redirect it here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I was very explicit when I wrote, "Disclosure: On 18 October 2013 I edited the article Movements for civil rights to correct this problem and posted an inquiry similar to this one on that articles talk page on 12 October 2013" in the above discussion. Also, WP:RM states in the lede that "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." No one has ever posted a reply to my inquiry on the talk page nor did anyone contest the move once performed. I will restate, there are no reliable sources to support the claim "The civil rights movement was a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." 1 1/2 years have passed with no disputes arising from the move. Mitchumch (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My bad

I've just reviewed the sources for the Jim Letherer article and they don't support the claim that he was an Orthodox Jew or even Jewish. Looks like someone was confused or trying to be cute. I should have been more careful, sorry. In the meantime, I'll delete the sentence about him (it won't let me revert it). --Rosekelleher (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The African American Civil Rights Movement

This article has a lot of information but it's not organized properly or given proper headers. Wikipedia articles have to get straight to the point though I can't see that happening to this article currently. The American Civil Rights Movement from 1954-1968 article lacks visual appeal and does not provided concise enough information to the reader.

I plan to fix this article by organizing the most important sections about Emmett Till Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, sparks that lead to the movement, view of segregation, the white view of African Americans in society, power to the people, a change in times, black power, and many more. The African American Civil Rights movement was an amazing time in America history where the oppressed stood their ground and fought for whats right. Its simply amazing thinking about the literature, music, art, science, and many more things that emerged through this movement.

Dom&Kish (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Good, the page needs a lot of work and I decided awhile ago not to jump in with both feet so as not to go overboard on the King-Bevel team which actually organized and ran the movement. But if you do work on 'King, Malcolm X' please consider researching James Bevel a bit more if you or your teachers aren't aware of his accomplishments and pivotal role in the movement, and of the arguable reality of the Civil Rights Movement's top-tier King-Bevel team. You may also notice, from the page and from a section above, that the Chicago Open Housing Movement is underreported in the article in terms of accuracy. Good to have you aboard, and it will be interesting to see if you and others get into some good talk page discussions with editors, some who want to put a heavy black power emphasis into what others see as a tightly organized and centrally run nonviolent movement. From your note you may also want to take note and add to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) in popular culture Best regards, Randy Kryn 13:50 10 April, 2015 (UTC)
@Dom&Kish: Greetings, can you explain specifically what your criticism is? The movement was broad and complex and didn't have a simplistic "point". Half of us here can't even agree on what the exact name should be for this article or what the exact start and end dates of the period are. Oversimplification would serve to manufacture consensus where none exists and distort the complexity of what really happened. Check out the quote from Doug McAdam (not a black nationalist the last time I checked) which I just restored to the lede. It doesn't reflect the pop culture view of the movement--which we're all already bombarded enough with--but it reflects the scholarly consensus. GPRamirez5 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Goals of the movement

Today several new items were added to the infobox under the heading of "Goals". Were affirmative action and an end to anti-miscegenation laws really goals of the movement, on a par with the end of segregation? What do other editors think? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative action was indeed a goal. James Farmer and Whitney Young were promoting affirmative action in the early 1960s. See here.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@GPRamirez5: I think you meant to add your response made on 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC) in the "Goals of the movement" section, and not "The African American Civil Rights Movement" section. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Mitchumch (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Mitchumch: That response was made to Dom&Kish's comment in "The African American Civil Rights Movement" section. GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@MShabazz: The entire infobox needs to be the subject of a discussion. This infobox was proposed by User:Yerevantsi on 6 December 2013. The sole issue raised centered on its oversimplification of the movement. Despite the concern raised User:2601:9:7680:2d1:821f:2ff:fe68:691f added the infobox on 11:17, 13 March 2014. The issue was never addressed. Consequently, the addition of another oversimplification centered on goals hasn't broken the infobox - the infobox was already broken. I favor an overhaul of the infobox to address the unresolved issue. Mitchumch (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why "African-American" in the page title?

The current page title suggests such was part of the name of the movement, and that it was the scope of it, which is far from the truth. Bayard Rustin forged alliances between the Black Panthers, the Gay Revolutionary Front, and women's groups as part of the movement. Jewish involvement in the movement was likewise strong.

The movement came out of African-American communities and was led by African-Americans, certainly, but their scope was civil rights. The title makes it seem like they were fighting for rights by group. Surely, the continued inclusion of Bayard Rustin after Strom Thurmond's attempt to blackmail the movement with that photo of him kneeling beside MLK in the tub speaks to that. Skyhawk0 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

In the common usage of the era, it was named "Civil Rights Movement" or "Freedom Movement." But it was understood by all that the Movement was led by Afro-Americans and in the South it was concerned with issues that primarily affected the black community such as segregation and denial of voting rights. In the North, the movement addressed issues of defacto school segregation and discrimination in housing and employment that also affected other nonwhite communities, but in the 1954-1968 period covered by this article the movement in the North was also primarily of and by Afros. I assume that "African-American" is added to the Wikipedia article title for clarification and to distinguish this article from others civil rights related campaigns, which seems reasonable to me. Brucehartford (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's actually entirely unreasonable and frankly, wrong. The entire slew of article names were changed several years back due to a virtual one-man campaign by a user who was either pushing a POV or wasn't familiar with the literature. As Skyhawk so eloquently states, this was about civil rights for all people under the law. I seriously suspect that the article title changes are a sneaky attempt to push a POV. And as the literature repeatedly states, over and over and over again, civil rights for African Americans is civil rights for all groups. The article series should be changed back. This is very clearly an attempt at revisionist history, an incredibly sneaky attempt to make it seem like it was a singular movement by one people when in fact it was people of all ethnicities fighting for equality and justice under the law. The history books clearly demonstrate this is the case, but once again Wikipedia caters to obsessive basement dwellers who with a few keystrokes can permanently alter the historical record. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

"p." versus "pp."

"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

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_rights_movement/Archive_10&oldid=1026301094"