Talk:Civil rights movement

August 1, 1968
So, how is this date chosen as the end point? For the start point there's a Supreme Court decision, which seems to me perhaps kind of late, since someone had to be making the court case happen, but at least it's a definite datable event. However some quick Google searches have failed to show me anything special about August 1, 1968. So, how come? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I changed it to April 11, 1968, the ratification date of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. August 1 seems to be completely arbitrary. I was originally considering using the date of the MLK assassination, but I figure that the 1968 act enactment is close enough and also its mentioned in the rest of the infobox. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 00:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph on the first section is weird. Wrong facts.
Hi! I just want to give some attention to the last paragraph on the first section on this page. It's talking about the black power movement, and it says:

"The emergence of the Black Power movement, which lasted from 1965 to 1975, challenged Black leaders of the movement for its cooperative attitude and its adherence to legalism and nonviolence. Its leaders demanded not only legal equality, but also economic self-sufficiency for the community. Support for the Black Power movement came from African Americans who had seen little material improvement since the civil rights movement's peak in the mid-1960s, and still faced discrimination in jobs, housing, education and politics. Martin Luther King Jr. was the most visible leader of the movement. However, some scholars note that the movement was too diverse to be credited to any particular person, organization, or strategy."

This entire paragraph is talking about the black power movement, which makes it weird why Martin Luther King is mentioned there and makes it look like he was the most visible leader for the black power movement instead of the civil rights movement, which is of course wrong. And right after mentioning him as a leader it says "However, some scholars note that the movement was too diverse to be credited to any particular person, organization, or strategy.", and the link is a article about the black power movement, so I think it's just a honest mistake about the person writing it thinking he really was a leader for that movement, and that it's not just weirdly written. Can someone please change this? At least to organize it in a way so it doesn't seem like he was leader for the wrong movement, so there's no misunderstandings when reading it. But you can keep the rest of the text there. Thanks!

(Also if this is now changed it just means that someone changed it already) <3 Thank you! MeManBlaze (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yup. As you mention, it appears it was part of a good faith and much needed attempt to trim the lead down to a more manageable size. This particular edit added far, far too much confusion, so I have restored the prior wording and moved it to its own paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers! MeManBlaze (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to read now, thanks! I just got to ask (just to be sure) is the source cited with "However, some scholars note that the movement was too diverse to be credited to any particular person, organization, or strategy." really talking about the civil rights movement? I believe it's talking about the black power movement. Look at the source. Maybew we could move up that sentence to the other paragraph as well?
 * I'm not really sure though since I didn't read too much of the article linked with the source. But the title makes it seem like it (but it could be there, I don't know), and I've only skim-read it a little bit, and that's why I'm asking :p I just want to be sure. I'm not really experienced with editing at wikipedia, so I'd rather ask than make a wrong edit when it's about an important subject like this. And once again, thanks for the help with the edit! I appreciate it. MeManBlaze (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Is the article too domestic focused?
Hi! I can't currently edit the page, as my account is new and I haven't made any edits elsewhere, but I have some suggestions on some improvements. When reading the page, I got the impression that it presents Civil Rights almost entirely as a domestic issue, when a lot of modern scholarship doesn't see it that way (eg Dudziak, Gaines). There are a few ways I think this should be addressed. Firstly, I think the lead section should at least mention how the Cold War/foreign relations impacted the movement, seeing as international opposition to segregation was an important reason why the movement succeeded (figures eg Eisenhower only acted as they did due to external pressure). Similarly, the 'Background' section is completely domestic focused. It doesn't mention appeals to the United Nations (eg An Appeal to the World), or how American Civil rights campaigners were influenced by campaigns against racial discrimination elsewhere. Another part missing its international context is the section on Little Rock, which doesn't mention any reasons why Eisenhower made the decision (partly to enforce the law, partly to demonstrate progress to international observers). I definitely think the 'Avoiding the Communist label' section needs changing, as this only reflects part of the movement and not figures eg Mayfield, Robeson, Du Bois etc. Finally, I think the 'Truman administration' section leaves out the more complicated reality of his relationship with Civil Rights, including but not exclusively his administration voting against UN declaration against racial discrimination. So while obviously this page is about the movement for legal change in the United States, I think it is currently missing a lot of the context and limiting it purely to events within the US is not helpful. Alexmolinario (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Jewish support for the movement
@Drmies As requested I'll post the rationale here, the rationale is the same however I was largely responding to the previous edit with clarifications. I actually think there are several reasons for the removal of this section:


 * 1) The information is almost entirely duplicated on this page already, the section "American Jews" already contains all the relevant information, if anything the additional link and a small sentence should have been added to that part of the page
 * 2) Information is provided in much more detail on the linked page "Jews in the civil rights movement" as well making this addition redundant on an already very detailed page
 * 3) The inclusion of the 2% figure referenced by @Luxofluxo is not supported by the article linked, is a case of "WP:OR" and also doesn't provide much in the way of additional information. EG: Providing the % of practicing lawyers who are Jewish would be a more specific and relevant detail if this is the type of sentence we're looking for.
 * 4) Incorrect section: Characteristics is a section for the core characteristics of the movement itself and not of the groups who supported it, note that Native American groups which were also directly involved in the movement and supportive of it are also referenced in the "Popular Reactions" section.

This is a recent edition to the page and doesn't seem to provide any additional detail aside from a case of Original research which isn't supported. Galdrack (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, now you can see if this gains any traction. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well currently we have one response agreeing to remove it and no others since seeing a need to keep it. It's been about a month it seems fair it should be removed now. Galdrack (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Remove. Tend to agree with Galdrack, also because this article is very long, and there were many supporting, and not just many Jews or Native Americans but others: auto workers union, Protestant churches, Catholic conference, Orthodox churches, communists, and more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Jewish support was of decisive importance and deserves emphasis. And historians give it more attention by far for this reason. in Google scholar there are tens of thousands of links [to Jews "civil rights movement"] Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense. Decisive? Unless your trying to minimize African Americans in their own civil rights, and really how could it possibly be decisive for Catholics or Protestants, by far the majority. And your google dump is more than overmatched by churches and the civil rights movement, among other such searches. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The white Catholics and white Protestants were far more numerous than Jews but far less supportive--indeed most of the opposition came from white Catholics and white Protestants. The Black civil rights leaders did not have a base in the national government or national media and I think Jews provided that key ingredient. In terms of religion & ethnicity, the black churches were by far the key player--the google dump is overwhelmingly about black Protestant churchesnext the Jewish groups and far behind were the white Protestant and white Catholic organizations. Here is some evidence from published reliable scholarly sources: (1) Paul Murray states, "Historians have noted the "miniscule presence" of Roman Catholics in the Civil Rights movement prior to 1963." Paul T. Murray, American Catholic Studies (Fall 2017) p. 25]. (2) Mark Newman states, "The Catholic Church in the South is seen as divided between a clerical establishment that supported the goals of integration and racial equality, and a majority white laity that often did not." Mark Newman, Virginia Magazine of History & Biography (2009) p. 356. (3) McGreevey says that "The involvement of clergy and nuns in the [1960s Civil Rights] movement revealed deep divisions within the [Catholic] Church, as many laymen were outraged to see Catholics of the cloth participating in civil rights demonstrations." John T. McGreevy, Religion & American Culture (Summer 1994) p. 221. (4) Eric Martin says that when Catholic priest Daniel Berrigan began his civil rights activism in the early 1960s, "his racial consciousness developed rapidly during this period, much to the consternation of his Jesuit superiors. Their effort to turn his attention from joining the movement and the wider church's failure to support black American leadership galvanized the priest and prompted a vocational crisis in him." Eric Martin, American Catholic Studies (Summer 2019) p.53. (4) According to a review of the book by Thomas Collins, in Alabama "the Methodist Church did not respond to the civil-rights movement. In fact, anyone who did show any sympathy, especially among its ministers, was punished, threatened, transferred, or intimidated by his own white congregation and by pro-segregationist groups within the Methodist Church. Collins argues that the Methodist Church limited its welcome 'to its own kind' and supported the segregated status quo." [review of When the Church Bell Rang Racist: The Methodist Church and the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama (1998) --the review is in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2001) p. 770.] Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with your position to Keep the context that is reliably sourced. Perhaps it could be moved to a more appropriate section if there is consensus to do so. If there is not RS for the 2% figure it should be removed, but that does not justify removal of the entire section. The first paragraph seems legitimate according to sources. One of the sources from your search listed the Gettysburg Journal, which seems particularly insightful.
 * Gettysburg Historical Journal Vol. 20 Article 8
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Sure the white churches in the South were worse, but you make no case for the Jewish congregations of the South. And sure the national white church bodies were tardy compared to the African American church bodies, but the 1960s were the critical decade and the national church bodies were crucial in that decade.(indeed, "the most important force at work" were the churches, said the author of the Civil Rights Act)).  Nor does, "The Race Beat: The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation" (Pulitzer Prize Winner), support you contention of a specifically Jewish effort in the press. Moreover, none of your sources address your unsourced contention for ranking groups, Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant, let alone, your unsourced "decisive". Perhaps most importantly, nothing you have said requires a new section of this article as there was already a section. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ..."One community that had a complex reaction to the movement, played a major role within it, and was impacted by it was the American Jewish community" (p. 101)...."Martin Luther King, Jr. had been quoted in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a news bulletin published in 1964 saying, “It would be impossible to record the contribution that the Jewish people have made toward the Negro’s struggle for freedom—it has been so great.”44 In addition, according to James Farmer, National Director of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), by 1963 the organization had “substantial numbers of Jews active in our local chapters and active in giving us financial support.”45 Furthermore, in Going South: Jewish Women in the Civil Rights Movement, author Debra L. Schultz and the Jewish volunteers she interviewed identified the trend that “Jews supported the movement more than any other white ethnic group.” (p. 118) Gettysburg Journal
 * Cheers. DN (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of that supports "decisive." And playing a major role, does not mean others did not play a major role - which is the matter that is false, here.  It would be like saying, others did not have a complex relationship with the movement which they clearly did.  The very article you cite is about complexity, like Jews in the South being reluctant and across-the-board conservative and orthodox Jews (which were then most Jews) being the most reluctant, not quote mining for one thing. And none of that supports having two sections of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm replying to this again as none of the arguments for keeping this section address the points I've listed here, it's been over a month and this hasn't gotten any major traction it's well overdue removal. Galdrack (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the most part, I see no issue with moving any non-duplicative out of the Characteristics section back to the more substantive section. DN (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)