Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

external review

Please see Wikipedia:External peer review/The Chronicle of Higher Education October 2006 for the comments of a professor who graded this article as C. Thanks, BanyanTree 15:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy

Hi. I must admit I find the ommission of any specific mention of the efforts and dedication of Robert F. Kennedy to be quite remarkable. JFK's record on civil rights before attaining the presidency was negligible. It was his younger brother's obsession and passion for the rights of the blacks and other minorities which in very large part initiated the Kennedy administration's efforts to secure the Civil Rights acts. Robert Kennedy did more to desegregate Capitol Hill and all other branches of government than any politician before or since - he even threatened Vice Presidenct Johnson over the issue. I would be happy to write a section on RFK's work in this field, and I feel that without mention of his work this article fails to give the fuller picture of events from 1960-1968. Such was RFK's standing on this issue that on the night, and following day, of King's assassination when RFK gave a speech (on the need for peace following the killing) in Indiannapolis that city was to be virtually the only major city where rioting did not take place.

Having just read the article in full, virtually every mention of 'President Kennedy' or 'The Kennedy administration' ought in fact be a refererence to Robert Kennedy - who took the majority of the decisions alluded to.

Best, Iamlondon 07:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, insightful. But will need a source for that. Simesa 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem - Schlesinger covers most of this and I can cite everything. I'll write it up when I get a chance.Iamlondon 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1957: NOI

James L. Hicks wrote a piece in the Amsterdam News, December 28, 1957: "1957: Year Negroes Fought Back". In it he alludes not only to Little Rock, but also to the independence of Ghana and also to the incident in which (as Scott Saul put it recently—Scott Saul, Harper's, December 2006, "On the Lower Frequencies: Rethinking the Black Power movement", p.92-98, the relevant passage is on p.94) "hundreds of members of the Nation of Islam lined up in strict military formation outside a [Harlem] police station when one of their own was bludgeoned by officers; the disciplined Black Muslims marched off—and the much rowdier crowd that had gathered dispersed—only after Malcolm X gave word that the beaten man was assured proper medical care." I think something about this may belong in the article; it is a landmark in the more militant side of the struggle for Black American civil rights. - Jmabel | Talk 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If the incident was gven a popular name, an article about it would be appropriate. Then place a link in Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. Note: can't plagiarize from copyrighted material. Simesa 05:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would think that as an administrator with well over 50,000 edits I don't need to be admonished not to plagiarize. No, to the best of my knowledge the incident does not have a name. We could put it under Johnson Hinton, the otherwise non-notable victim of the police beating. I'm a little surprised that there is nothing about it at Nation of Islam#History. I suspect that this mostly means that most Wikipedians are young. Further references: [1] [2] [3] - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't check. This article has an issue with unsourced material. I will look at the refs tomorrow and make an entry into Timeline of the ACRM. Agan, my apologies. Simesa 06:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. If no one else gets to this, I will do it myself, but it is likely to be January 2007 by the time it would get to the top of my list. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cold War

I notice that the only mention here of the Cold War as context is an afterthought at the end saying it should not be ignored. But, of course, the rest of the article ignores it. Seems to me like someone might want to consider how to better lace this thought through the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Pro- and Anti-Civil Rights people

Why do the same names appear on both the Pro and Anti lists? It seems as if these Pro- and Anti-Civil Rights people sections were added merely to further certain viewpoints or ideologies. Just because someone refuses to support or oppose certain laws does not mean s/he is against or for the entire concept.

Seems a pretty poor way to organize the material. - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus, little of what is there deals with the period in question for this article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's start by removing the presidents. No president in the relevant period was notably anti-civil rights. - Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kennedy Administration

I have removed my former analysis of the article and contributed the section as was suggested to me by another editor (see above). It took quite some time but I hope you all feel it is an important/worthy addition. Best, Iamlondon 03:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this is good, but it is a bit essayistic for Wikipedia. It also seems a bit disproportionate: this is supposed to be an article about a movement, not about certain privileged and powerful people's sympathy toward that movement. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it is 'essayistic'. Ultimately, the Kennedys were an integral part of the of the Civil Rights history - whether one denounces them for 'privilege' or not. Bobby Kennedy more or less wrote into Johnson's administration the Civil Rights Act - as publicly confessed and welcomed by Johnson himself. Iamlondon 08:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change

I support the name change back to American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), consistent with the other articles American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954) and Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. Simesa 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...but i don't think you have the authority to do so. The admin was not at all misinformed. It was a decision based on a consensus(seeing that there was no opposition) that the name should be changed. Whether you thing that two voice in the vote is fair or not is a different problem. Now i don't mind if people oppose this move...but i do have a problem with people complaining after the discussion was ended. The move discussion was even extended. So please don't give excuses about this and that ...b/c if people felt really strongly about it (that it shouldn't be change) people should've voiced your oppinion earlier. If you want to discuss this issue further...please contact the administrator directly. I respect the procedure. When i changed the article's title, many people opposed and said that i should contact the administator first before i make major changes, and i, too, would truly appreciate it if you would do the same. Thank you very much. Sincerely--Vircabutar 04:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So a lack of participation (or lack of awareness) is a consensus? The process involved [[Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955-1968%29#Requested_move the "Requested Move" notice] in this Talk page, the WP:RM notice of August 10 with no response, [the WP:RM relisting of August 16] also with no response, [[Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281955-1968%29#Move the post-move discussion "Move"] in this Talk page. (SEWilco 15:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
I would agree that the name should be changed to American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) as the far more common name. --Habap 15:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately or Fortunately (however way you view it) lack of awareness is technically a consensus. Frankly i'm tired of trying to tell people what's technically right or wrong. I followed the procedure & the rules, and that is all there is to it. If you disagree please contact the administrator, and please do not change the name of this article without going through the necessary procedure (like i did). Thanks. --Vircabutar 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

KKK

The Ku Klux Klan hated desegregation and civil rights. They hated black people, and they think that they are christian. Can you believe that? That is reaaly funny. Ha. Ha. No, actually that is sad. Smartie960 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Race riots, 1963-1970

Overall this is a nice article. The Riot section is well written, but I think would be stronger if it have more direct references for some of these facts. Especially the last paragraph. I would be concerned about POV in this section too. --Knulclunk 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Race Rebellions

Changing riots to rebellions seems an inappropriate concession to political correctnesses. These are my reason for keeping it riots:

  1. It is the traditional name, changing the name is white-washing history and confusing users looking for information.
  2. "riot suggests mindless and senseless" Although marching and protests may have been thoughtful and organized, looting and arson was not.
  3. If rebellion suggest thoughtful and organized, it also suggests directed at military targets for political change.
  4. Riot is not a derogatory term. Using the term does it diminish the accomplishments won or setbacks caused in the affected cities.

--Knulclunk 12:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Use of the term riot seems an inappropriate concession to the political correctness of right wing racial discrimination. Here are my reasons for changing the word 'riot' to something less emotional and more reflective recognition of the insurrection against the centuries old tradition of the white power structure denying most black people civil and equal rights, often in the most violent and demeaning ways.

  1. In the white-washing of history, the Boston riot is ubiquitously known as a Tea Party.
  2. Unsure of what "tradition" you reference, there was widespread criticism of media use of the term "riot" in the 1960s to describe what white reporters did not understand and were hostile to. In those days, there was a white press and a black press and very few black reporters were hired to work in the white press.
  3. Reference to white tradition calls up a closed mindset that panders to the tradition of bigotry and a tradition of violence and degradation toward those who are not white.
  4. Riot is provably a derogatory term, as shown below.

I am amenable to finding a neutral term, such as insurrection or civil unrest, protest or civil disorder. The following is overwhelming evidence that the term 'riot' is emotionally laden, and should be rejected for cause.

http://onelook.com/?w=riot&ls=a

Quick definitions (riot)

  1. noun: a public act of violence by an unruly mob
  2. noun: a state of disorder involving group violence
  3. noun: a wild gathering involving excessive drinking and promiscuity
  4. noun: a joke that seems extremely funny
  5. verb: take part in a riot; disturb the public peace by engaging in a riot (Example: "Students were rioting everywhere in 1968")
  6. verb: engage in boisterous, drunken merry-making

The definition in Merriam-Webster, the dictionary most widely used as the standard in the publishing industry, reports the meaning as follows:

riot 7 entries found for riot. To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1ri·ot Pronunciation: 'rI-&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French riote rash action, noise, disorder 1 archaic a : profligate behavior : DEBAUCHERY b : unrestrained revelry c : noise, uproar, or disturbance made by revelers 2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent 3 : a random or disorderly profusion <the woods were a riot of color> 4 : one that is wildly amusing <the new comedy is a riot>

[4]


The quick definition of rebellion is:

Quick definitions (rebellion)

  1. noun: organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another
  2. noun: refusal to accept some authority or code or convention (Example: "Each generation must have its own rebellion")

[5]

The M-W definition:

Main Entry: re·bel·lion Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n Function: noun 1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance 2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance synonyms REBELLION, REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY mean an outbreak against authority. REBELLION implies an open formidable resistance that is often unsuccessful <open rebellion against the officers>. REVOLUTION applies to a successful rebellion resulting in a major change (as in government) <a political revolution that toppled the monarchy>. UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion <quickly put down the uprising>. REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds <a revolt by the Young Turks that surprised party leaders> <an insurrection of oppressed laborers>. MUTINY applies to group insubordination or insurrection especially against naval authority <a mutiny led by the ship's cook>.

[6]


Skywriter 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Watts and Harlem riots were an organized rebellion? Is there any sourced documentation, in the black press or elsewhere, that there was an organized power structure ordering the destruction of property for the purpose of achieving a political goal? --Knulclunk 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Do the sources say riot or rebellion? (SEWilco 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_rights_movement/Archive_4&oldid=830372101"