Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Civil rights movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Even though the page would be very long without the split, I find it makes it much harder to go betwene both pages. I also noted some things are missing that I thought was good to leave in (Smith v. Allwright for example). Any thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.224.237 (talk • contribs) .

There is no genetic or other scientific test for "whiteness" or "blackness" (Or "negroness" or "african-american-ness"). Classifying human beings according to these concepts is a POV. Any use of the terms "white", "black", "negro" or "african-american" is a POV unless a definition is provided. Centuries ago people were divided into "nobles" and "commoners". This distinction was entirely a political/religious belief, which supported the feudalist system.

Can anyone provide non-POV definitions of "white" or "black"? 24.64.166.191 05:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if we think it was a ridiculous idea, we can still have an article that discuss the division of people into "nobles" and "commoners". I think that people with any point of view would agree that during the period 1955 to 1968, that there was a partially successful movement to help one group of people gain some rights to be legally equal to the other group. Morris 21:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I did put a note near the top of the article that the terms (e.g. African American) have evolved over time, and refering the reader to the article on that. Morris 21:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of the racists, a black person was someone whose ancestry included so much as a single suspected black person, just like in Nazi Germany a Jew by definition was someone whose ancestry included a single person who had practiced that religion, irrespective of what their religion was at the time of the persecution. AlMac|^(talk) 23:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The main article and the discussion page are the most boring things in this encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.165.192 (talk • contribs) .

See Cultural Catastrophe (Below)

A comment in the Article Improvement Drive discussion requested a Timeline, apparently not noticing that one already existed! I looked for a place in the body to place a link, and finally decided it had to go in te intro - where it fit best at the very end. Simesa 08:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a famous image in which a white woman screams at a black woman in front of a university during a civil rights protest. The black woman was trying to enrol as a protest during segregation in the US. The racist woman later denounced racism and began campaigning with the woman she had been abusing in the image. I would very much like to find out their names and find a copy of the image, if anyone here can help please leave a note on my talk page, thanks. - Solar 19:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I just want to add content, in order to agree with the article's title -- to be consistent with the article's present content, the title would need to be "(Some topics within the) American civil rights movement (1955-1968)" -- instead, I'm adding the needed content, in a manner as non-disruptive as possible but still more-or-less chronologically fitting into the time segment spanned by that section. Obviously I'm disagreeing with previous editors... who perhaps had good reasons for not using an accurate title, but failed to put those reasons on this talk page....

Also, I feel a lot of time pressure in making edits on this article. Right now, at least 2 sections are missing: 10 The March on Washington and the next section 11 Mississippi Freedom Summer. This must be due to vandalism since the history page certainly does not show their removal, missing since yesterday at least and numerous times in the recent past. My conclusion is to divide my edits up by section, doing one at a time and as quickly as possible in an attempt to NOT have a vandal making changes at the same time as I am making my changes. All I can do about it is explain where I'm coming from, in making my edits piecemeal. On the vandalism topic, if the administrators are removing comments about it in order not to encourage vandalism by even mentioning it, that's fine with me, please email me to that effect so I'll know it for the future, and remove these comments now. I'm NOT going to add this article to my watchlist, so perhaps I'll never know. I don't regard my work here as a contribution, just an unpleasant repair job that I can do because I'm familiar with the topic for the time being, and which I therefore altruistically do as an affirmative WP citizen. For7thGen 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

After (re)reading some of the above comments, I want to add: I see nothing wrong with splitting the article into about 4 sub-articles, to get down well under 32 KB even after years of further growth. And I LIKE the article's style, just a knowledgeable friend talking to me about a few big topics, in an encyclopedia-manner of course; provided that the main Timeline items for that time segment are kind of thrown in at the end of the topic = section. I don't like a title like "some topics within the" any more than others do, so in order to be consistent with the title, this smoothly-add-timeline-items-at-section-ends alternative is what I would choose and did in fact choose, in my edits. For7thGen 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism from 2 or 3 or 4 days ago: Two sections were removed, see two paragraphs higher. They were missing when I was on the page Fri or Sat or Sunday evening/night, and the usual line substituted, "poopoo" but poo 10-15 times instead of just 2 times, and something like "yiur" was there too. Then when I looked for that line a minute or an hour later, it was gone but the 2 sections haven't returned yet. This has happened at least 3 times before, during the last month. For7thGen 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I (think I) know how to fix vandalism (see changes to Wikipedia:Revert), and I've fixed it for now. And a bit later, I made my last (I hope) additions to this article. For7thGen 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't referred to this article in a while, so I hadn't known that it was no longer simply American Civil Rights Movement. I was wikifying Howard Lee, the former mayor of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and I came to this sentence: "His election was considered a step forward for the ongoing American civil rights movement . . . ." If I make "American civil rights movement" a wikilink, it now redirects here, which seems pretty silly in referring to an event that occurred in 1969. Suggestions, anyone? My own preference would be to make this article cover the period since 1955, recognizing that most of the material will concern the 1955-68 period but there will be some relevant items from 1969 on. JamesMLane 09:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I experienced the same problem when working on the article about the song "Dixie". That song is still being opposed to this day, and lots of people would claim that the Civil Rights Movement is ongoing. I'd support a change to American Civil Rights Movement (1955-present). —Amcaja 19:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the new footnotes are splendid! I'll be interested in the reaction of other editors. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

With the impressive addition of the timeline by User talk:Mr ethanboy, the article is over 100k long. I wonder if it might be well to discuss moving some of the content into new related articles? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already an article Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement and the additions should be merged into there. Simesa 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First, though, we have to ask - is this information from a copyrighted source? Simesa 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is agreement that this article needs reformatting and probably to be divided up and merged with existing articles on each event. Hopefully by adding this template, we will attract folks with the time to put this into motion. --159.28.7.144 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC) oops, sorry. that was me. --Schwael 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) you were the one that wrote this article?

The paragraph that begins with "This article focuses on that particular struggle..." needs to be changed, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. ~MDD4696 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)