Talk:Civil rights movement/Archive 5

Timeline and Desegregation of Armed Forces
I notice that the timeline of key events includes Jackie Robinson and his debut in major league baseball in 1947, but only makes a passing reference to Truman's executive order desegregating the military. Jackie Robinson was clearly a big deal because it put race relations and civil rights in the forefront of popular culture, but doesn't military desegregation qualify as a key event? Arguably, given the conscription at the time and the size of the U.S. military as a proportion of total U.S. population, military desegregation laid the groundwork for full desegregation later. Consequently, wouldn't it make sense to include it as a key event? Epstein&#39;s Mother 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - Desegregation of the military should definitely be on as a key event - it affected so many people. The military has been more effective than many portions of society in integrating and enabling minorities to advance.--Parkwells (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We just needed to look further - it's on the timeline in 1948, as that's when Truman signed the Executive Order.--Parkwells (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Politicians who opposed the Civil Rights Movement during this period
I removed the list of politicians who opposed the Civil Rights Movement during this period because most of the people on the list were not even alive during the period from 1955 to 1968. Some of them were actually 18th century politicians. Just leaving the few who were alive during that period would be misleading; it would be better to start the list all over again focusing on the important figures. The list also included only members of Congress, with no governors mentioned; that should be addressed if the list is revised and restored. --Metropolitan90 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably a good move. I don't know if there were any particular criteria for inclusion in the list. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Politicians listed as opposed should be on record as speaking out against all or most aspects of the Civil Rights Movement. Inclusion on the opposition list should go beyond a simple voting record or voicing concerns about marches and riots. --Knulclunk 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some presumably uncontroversial inclusions in this respect would be James Eastland, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thurmond, and Bull Connor. All, I think, rather unwavering in their positions in this period (although Wallace was probably being an opportunist, and Faubus might have been as well), and all very active in this period.

Slightly more controversially, I'd be inclined to mention J. Edgar Hoover in this respect; I think the question is more whether he qualifies as a "politician" than whether he opposed the movement. - Jmabel | Talk 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

POV of article
I'm not totally arguing for this case, but this article takes the view that civil rights were a "good" thing, with an overall positive stance, isnt this POV? While I agree, and I'm sure the majority would agree that it was a good thing, doesnt that mean that there is POV in the article, and maybe we should mention some of the "down sides" (if there are any) of the civil rights movements? I'm not sure how we do it, but just wondering if there is a way that we can tell people the facts, and let them decide that it was a good thing, rather than just telling them was and expecting them to accept this without drawing their own conclusions. 81.149.82.243 08:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the scientific textbook "Conditions of Happiness" published in 1984 by Ruut Veenhoven, happiness levels of blacks declined significantly through the Civil Rights era (1946 to 1966). The decline was especially strong on highly educated blacks that were most integrated into society - African Americans had a reverse correlation between income and happiness - which is opposite of what whites had, and have, as is the opposite of most of the world (in most nations, there is a positive correlation). The declines were much higher in the North as well. Blacks in the South actually got slightly happier over that time period. In the book, the main speculated reason was relating to positional social status - when blacks were amongst each other, they might not have felt as poor, discriminated against, etc.. Plus with the Civil Rights movement, all the educated blacks started to leave black neighborhoods, effectively turning them into ghettos full of only poor, unskilled, uneducated residents... leaving these masses of people very vunerable. Peoplesunionpro 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Might that be an expression of people becoming depressed as they found they were only nominally accepted or integrated into public society? I'd be interested to see any current data on the issue; as other contributors have said the Civil Rights Era and movements aren't necessarily over to begin with, if society has truly become more open and accepting, have things changed?
 * I guess it's silly to expect that the current outcome of the movement will be either completely positive or negative, as I just mentioned, life is all a work in progress anyway. 64.89.150.153 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a number of what might be called "side effects". Older activists who had served sometimes for thirty years or so got pushed to the side as the younger ones began to reap the benefits of integration. Some businesses that were built on segregation like hospitals, hotels and the Negro Leagues went under, athletes began to go to other than HSBCUs, etc, etc. Social networks which were once rooted in the church began to go elsewhere. Not that they were good or bad, just another view on the effects of the movement and how all changes were not for the better in all ways.-- Da Stre ssor  23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming this article
Per the comments above, I propose renaming this article African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-present).

Like the two editors who commented previously, I came across this problem when I tried to Wikilink the phrase "civil rights activist" in Al Sharpton's biography. Sharpton, who was born in 1954, was not part of the civil rights movement between 1955 and 1968.

Another problem is that the article's title suggest that the civil rights movement is a thing of the past, which it isn't.

Obviously, renaming the article would expand its scope. We would need to add information to the article about civil rights activism during the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 00s.

What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * support proposal  Yahel  Guhan  09:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can't we start an article African-American Civil Rights Movement 1968-Present - this sorely needs to be covered on Wikipedia. -- David  Shankbone  22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with David. A new article is needed. There was at least one transition between 1968 (who remembers Bakke?) and today-- Da Stre ssor 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a latecomer to this discussion, but I think that the present title dishonors the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, who never would have imagined that his movement was directed at one race in particular. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree with David.
 * 2) Terrawatt, I think that what you are saying is true of King in the last several years of his life, but less so earlier. As for "never would have imagined", I think you overstate the case. The central fact of the Civil Rights Movement in this era was that it was about civil rights for African-Americans, or as nearly all would have said at the time, Negroes. Yes, it stimulated comparable civil rights movements for other ethnic and racial minorities, and, yes, Dr. King eventually began to see himself more as trying to forge a "poor people's" movement than a "Negro" movement. Still, speaking as someone who was already old enough to be paying attention by '68 (I was 13 when King was shot, and I was from a very political family), the prevailing mental model of the time (especially east of the Mississippi) was of a two-race society. This even in New York, with a lot of Puerto Ricans in the local picture. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with having an article about the Civil Rights Movement (1969-present) - note change in date. I think many people felt the assassinations and riots of 1968 ended one period. In terms of labeling the earlier periods "African American" or not, to me the African American implies that the movements were led by African Americans, not that the results were only for African Americans. Maybe we can also make that obvious in the lead for each article. Perhaps the last period of 1969 to present could be labeled "American Civil Rights Movement, 1969-present", and then incorporate some of the wider ethnic, gender and other civil rights struggles.--Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "friendly amendments". The contrast in title seems quite appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

MLK/Malcolm X in the article
In the main article I counted 2 mentions of Malcolm X compared to at least 53 mentions of King. Surely in the interests of a NPOV, even if Malcolm X did not seek to be a part of the civil rights movement until late in his life, they should receive a fairly equal proportion of the article? For example, where is there mention of Malcolm's large contribution to the Voting Rights Act? Sadly this article reflects the all too widespread belief that Martin Luther King was the one and only civil rights leader. It was not just Black Nationalists who argued against this, then or now. --AYBGerrardo (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Closely related: I see no one followed up on my remarks at above. I'm somewhat back from a long hiatus on Wikipedia; I might get to this myself. - Jmabel | Talk 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign up for FAC
I wanted folks to know that daughter article Birmingham campaign is up for FAC. If you're interested in improving the article or commenting on it, here's the nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most successful sit-in?
The article states that the "best organized, most highly disciplined, the most immediately effective of these was in Nashville, Tennessee." and it is unsourced. However, seems to indicate that Greensboro was most successful, so I have added a  tag to the statement. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rosa Parks section
Someone added a lot of unsourced material that duplicated what was there, and also referred to events covered later in the article. I edited the material to combine it with the sourced material. --Parkwells (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See also section
Isn't a "See also" section supposed to be limited to links not already present in the article? - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

101st airborne
Well, they were renowned after WW2. I thought maybe they were purposely chosen for that reason, to be more respected by the local population (that is, the mob). But at least the linked presidents documents don't give proof of that. -- 790 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)