Talk:Selma to Montgomery marches/Archive 1

murder of woman who provided transport for marchers
I recall a white woman who gave rides to marchers was later murdered when seen driving a black teenager home, but can't recall her name. Was she connected with this march? What's her name? Tuoreco 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Her name was Viola Liuzzo, and yes, she was indeed connected with this march. We learned about her in my university class on the Civil Rights Movement. You can read more about her at her Wikipedia article, which as you can see I have provided a link to. Gujuguy 20:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored missing photos and text
On 10 November 2006, an anonymous editor removed a substantial amount of content for this page. I've restored nearly all of it. --Laefer 10:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name
In a recent episode of "Win Ben Stein's Money", one of the questions was "What was the name of the march which took place in Selma, Alabama in 1965?" I don't suppose it was simply called "Selma to Montgomery marches"; so what was it?

I think the answer should have been the Civil Rights march from Selma to Montgomery


 * Names are what people choose to use to identify something, so far as I know there is no "official" namer of things. The at the time, and historians use whatever names seem right to them. Some of the more commonly used names for the marches are:
 * Selma to Montgomery March
 * Selma Voting Rights March
 * Selma-Montgomery March
 * The March to Montgomery
 * Brucehartford (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrests on Oct 7th, 1963
As to the initial arrests, the article is not clear. Was only Lillian Gregory arrested, or was it the group of the Balwins and Dick Gregory and his wife???--Buster7 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lillian was arrested with some SNCC activists and local movement supporters. The Baldwins and her husband Dick were not arrested (he had been arrested a number of times in other protests). I made a minor edit to try to clarify the question.
 * Brucehartford (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the selma march to Montgomery took three weeks and three events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.54.216 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs
"This day will forever be known as Bloody Sunday, as policed[sic] forced the peaceful marchers to turn around and head back to Selma, they used tear gas and clubs to harm these peace marchers. African Americans were in a struggle to get voting rights listed in the United States Constitution, in Alabama half of the population were African Americans and only one percent of them were registered voters." This reads badly, sounds like some opinion has crept in. Unfortunately, I know little about the subject, so wouldn't even attempt to "fix" it. 86.133.5.171 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

out of saigon, into selma
out of saigon, into selma this was chanted during the marches I think, but i'm not perfectly sure. Maybe it should be elegantly put into the text somewhere. --84.56.69.2 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't recall an "Out of Saigon, into Selma" chant on the march, but it's possible it did happen. Lots of people raised many different chants at different times, but "Out of Saigon, into Selma" was not one of the main chants or themes put forward in the mass meetings or marches by march leaders. However, "Out of Saigon, into Selma" was a big theme and main chant a few months later during large-scale anti-war protests in Berkeley CA and elsewhere. Perhaps that's where you heard about it.

Brucehartford (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the important facts about the marches?
does anyone no any really important facts about these marches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.93.17 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How Did SCLC "Know" What Judge Johnson Was Going To Do About The Restraining Order?
The article states that "SCLC knew that Judge Johnson would eventually lift the restraining order." How did SCLC know that? Did Judge Johnson provide SCLC with inside information not available to the other parties in the case? This statement carries a strong implication of impropr conduct by a sitting federal judge. It should be documented or deleted. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word "knew" could be misinterpreted in this context. I changed it to read: "Based on their past experience, SCLC was confidant that Judge Johnson would eventually..."
 * Brucehartford (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

ID of the nun in the picture from the third marches
In this sermon delivered after the march, Rabbi Maurice Davis notes that Deaconess Phyllis Edwards of the Episcopal Diocese of California was in the front. Could that be the nun in the picture and mentioned in the article? Here is a link to the sermon - http://taliashewrote.com/2010/01/28/brotherhood-postponed/ THDju (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Names and factual clarifications
I don't want to necessarily dispute the things here because memories and perceptions can (and often are) biased - and I don't mean that in a bad way - by the person relating the information.

My father, a Border Patrol Officer at the time, was deputized a US Marshall by the Justice Department to assist in the enforcement of the Civil Rights Laws and was at both the incident at Ole Miss with James Meridith, and the march from Selma with Dr. King.

During the march from Selma, he worked under Charlie Chamblee, who was the main coordinator of the US Marshals assigned to make sure the event went on without a problem. When my dad arrived in Selma, he was appointed to be a "bodyguard" for Mr. Ramsey Clark, the attorney from Washington assigned as head of the operation. As such, he went with Mr. Clark to meet with Dr. King, Andrew Young, John Lewis, and Ralph Abernathy in Selma where they laid out the plans for the march.

On the first day of the march, as noted in the Wiki, they were stopped at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This is where the differences start. My father recalls that it was a group of men lead by Bull Connor that met them at the bridge. By the time the US Marshals were able to restore order, Bull and his men had beaten several of the marchers. Because of this, the marchers decided to stop and try again the next day.

After this incident, Mr. Clark met with Mr. Connor and several other of the local men. During this meeting, Mr. Clark reminded Bull about what happened at Ole Miss earlier and reluctantly, Mr. Connor backed down.

On the second day of the march, they proceed unimpeded (except for taunts and jeers from by-standers) and reached the pre-arranged camp where, as you noted, my father remembers the entertainment (he also recalls a lot of "interpersonal entertainment" going on, which is why he and Mr. Clark elected to find a motel in a nearby town).

All along the rest of the march, the Alabama State Police were there to keep the highways open and maintain order.

When they reached Montgomery, Mr. Clark (along with my father) met with General Billingsley (I believe that's the correct spelling), who was the head of the Alabama National Guard and was manning a post on the top floor of a building about 100 yards from the Capitol steps. The General, Dr. King, and Mr. Clark met at the Bethel Baptist Church across the street to discuss logistics, security, and what Dr. King would be doing. After which, my father and another young Marshal from Georgia were told to wait with Dr. King while the others went off to finalize the strategy (EDITORIAL NOTE: he spent quite a while with Dr. King and was amazed at the way you automatically felt comfortable with him. My father truly felt that Dr. King was being guided by the hand of God.)

I have more information that I would be willing to share (if I can get my father's approval), but I did want to make the particular comments regarding Mr. Bull Connor and Mr. Ramsey Clark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.249.20 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Civil Rights Massacre?
Not my area of history, but a question for those with knowledge of this era. With all the violence by police, was there ever an actual civil rights massacre? Like police setting up machine guns and mowing down protestors? If not, I'm actually surprised it didn't happen. The hate in the civil rights era was worse than the British in India and there were numerous cases there of authorities massacring hundreds of protestors. -OberRanks (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s there were a couple of incidents that are sometimes referred to as "massacres." The best known is the Orangeburg massacre of 1968 when South Carolina Highway Patrol officers fired into a crowd of protesters killing three and wounding 28. A lesser-known event was the Jackson State killings when police in Jackson, Mississippi opened fire on Vietnam War protesters killing two and wounding 12. Neither of these events come close to the scale of violence used by the British in India against nonviolent advocates for independence from British rule, or the Moslem versus Hindu violence that occurred in the context of that independence movement. At the Amritsar Massacre, for example, British troops slaughtered between 300 and 1,000 nonviolent protesters. While I personally experienced the violence in the American South, from what I've read of India I would have to disagree that the "the hate in the civil rights era was worse than the British in India." Brucehartford (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great links, will read those articles over. -OberRanks (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

1980 KKK "Cleansing March"
Does anybody remember during the 15th Anniversary of the demonstrations, the Ku Klux Klan actually marched along the same route as a so-called "cleansing march?" I think it was supposed to be a symbolic way to reverse the advances of civil rights movement. -User:DanTD (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tightening intro
Neonorange, you reverted my recent edit as "ahistorical". I fear you have missed the point &mdash; which, to be fair, I did not make clear in my edit summary. The point was to slim down an overly lengthy lead section. Bearing in mind that only the very basics need be covered in an intro (for example, DVCL is covered in the article itself), perhaps you'd care to point out what parts of my suggested text you consider ahistorical? Or even more constructively, would you care to make changes to the slimmed intro? PRRfan (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a careful read of the entire article will show the 'slimmed-down' version is not a proper summary. See, in particular, Section 3. - Neonorange (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think, for example, that the third sentence of the intro should be used to specify the time of day ("nighttime") and precise location ("Marion, Alabama") of an event that preceded the Selma marches? Or are these among the details better left for the article proper? PRRfan (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your interest in improving the lede of this article. I agree with you that better flow and concision are needed. I need to make a stab at reworking the lede before I can make useful suggestions to you (I do not intend to actually make live edits; From reading your chages here, I think you can do a better job). My goal is to insure a proper balance be given to the roles of individuals and organizations in the Selma marches. To a certain extent, this history is still being written.
 * I shall try to add comments in a day or two. - Neonorange (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the topic of this page is the Selma to Montgomery march, the reason for the march seems to be appropriate. Jimmie Lee Jackson was shot and was dying in a hospital when James Bevel, who was running the Selma Movement after he, Diane Nash, and James Orange had been working on Bevel's Alabama Project (a voting rights project began after the four girls died during the bombing in Birmingham) was released from a jail hospital. Bevel, after going to Marion to try to calm the people there, found that they not only weren't calm, but were taking out their guns and cleaning them. He had to do something, and went back to the Torch Motel to talk to Nash, his wife, who had him served with divorce papers while he was chained to the jail hospital bed. They had words, and Bevel shoved Nash hard, and she fell onto the bed. He left the room, knowing that the anger and rage he felt was also felt by the people in Marion and Selma over the impending death of Jackson.


 * Bevel walked around and around the perimeter of the Motel, circling it, trying to find a way to direct the anger. What he came up with was the idea to March to Montgomery along the highway in order to ask Gov. Wallace one question: "Did you order the lights be turned out during the nighttime demonstration in Marion?" (When he asked Wallace this Wallace said no, he didn't even know there was to be a demonstration) Bevel's goal was to get the people to put their guns away and to focus their energy on the 54 mile march. He first went in to the Motel's office, where night clerk Annie Lee Cooper was working, and told her about his idea, and then went into the room of Chuck Fager and his wife to tell them. After meeting with Jimmie Lee Jackson's relatives (along with Bernard Lafayette, who agreed to march with Bevel), who ok'ed the idea of the march, Bevel then announced it at the Marion church. The congregation said that they would march with him.


 * So, long story longer, the sourced history of the beginning of the march (without some of the other data I mention here, which is original research - not allowed in the articles but allowed on talk pages) works well in the lead. Maybe the word 'nighttime' isn't needed, yet the sentence used summarizes the key data of 'How did it come about?'. By the way, regarding background data pertaining to the next paragraph, the local Selma group had a long-standing request to SCLC to come in and help them even as Bevel, SCLC's Director of Direct Action, was working on organizing and preparing the people for movement in and around Selma and other cities in Alabama. Even though the main body of SCLC went to St. Augustine and other places without Bevel, and hesitated in coming to Alabama to work on voting rights, Bevel kept traveling to Atlanta to attend SCLC's board meetings and reporting on the progress that he, Nash, and Orange were making in Alabama. An era of brave people standing (or literally walking) for the freedom of all people. Randy Kryn 23:08 28 October, 2014 (UTC)
 * Fascinating stuff, and learning more about it makes it harder for me to insist on tightening the lead. But I still think we can rewrite the third and fourth paragraphs so that the narrative does not jump forward and backward in time. How about something like:

"The voting rights movement in Selma was launched by local African-Americans, who formed the Dallas County Voters League (DCVL). Joined by organizers from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), they began registering black voters in 1963. When white resistance to their work proved intractable, the DCVL turned to Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who brought many prominent civil rights and civic leaders to Selma in January 1965.

The following month, a voting-rights activist was mortally wounded during a march in Marion, Alabama, inflaming community passions. To defuse and refocus the anger, SCLC Director of Direct Action James Bevel called for a march of dramatic and unprecedented length, from Selma to Montgomery." PRRfan (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just did a little tightening of the first Intro paragraph, mostly to clarify some unclear language. For the remainder of the Intro, which I agree is both too long and somewhat redundant, something along the lines of the two paragraphs proposed above by PRRfan seem like a good start to me. So long as the details cut from the Intro are covered in the appropriate sections that follow.


 * On another point, I think that saying the purpose of the march was to "defuse and refocus the anger," is insufficient. That was ONE of the purposes, but another very important purpose was to continue pressing the demand for black voting rights, a third purpose was to protest police violence and suppression of Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights. Brucehartford (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not getting back to this page sooner. The initiating purpose, James Bevel's reason to call the march, was just that: to give the hate and anger that he saw rising in the people as the days went by, people knowing that Jimmie Lee Jackson was going to die (he was still alive when Bevel thought of the idea), a guy shot for protecting his mother and grandpa from literal beatings....that's cold...., an anger which was so real that Bevel's own considerable capacity for controlled anger was magnified by the situation (combined with Nash having someone serve him divorce papers while he was chained to a jail hospital bed...that's cold too lol) so much that he lost control of his body to the anger, shoved Diane Nash hard, she fell onto the bed, and Bevel got out of that room knowing that he was out of control and the people of Marion and Selma were out of control. He had seen rifles being taken out and cleaned. He had to do something, and that something was to walk around and around and around the Torch Motel until the idea of the march came to him, and with his mind trained in functional nonviolence he saw instantly, as soon as it came to him, that this march would work both to move the emotions of the people into something constructive (defuse doesn't seem exactly the right word, but close) and that it should be enough of an action to cause a larger national dialogue on the issue and bring full voting rights in the United States much closer (of course when he saw what occurred on "Bloody Sunday", and learned that nobody had reacted to the full-on assault with violence, he knew instantly that the voting rights that Dr. King had asked for in his 1957 "Give Us The Ballot" speech were now assured). So the first march - nobody knew at the time it would stretch to three marches - was initially called to take the focus of the people off of the police and walk many of them to Montgomery to ask Governor Wallace one question: "Did you order that the lights be turned off at the demonstration?" So although everyone knew that the march was also to ask for voting rights, and whatever the Selma to Montgomery march was later defined as being organized for, or what it came to be and now symbolizes, it was initially called to give the people a way to work their negative emotions into something which would benefit all mankind. But little of that can be said on the page. So yes, seems like a good starting point above, and the language could be tweaked for clarity and accuracy. Randy Kryn 2:00 31 October, 2014 (UTC)

Omission of Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos of America
With all due respect but I feel the article appears to have a negative bias towards people of Greek descent.

First, it makes unsubstantiated, subjective and extremely negative accusations against the Greek owners of the "Silver Moon Cafe" diner,

and

Second, it has completely erased from the 3rd march on March 21st the presence of Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos of America. Of course this is NOT the case with other spiritual and religious leaders, i.e. rabbis, nuns, etc.

Also the "famous photo" you are referring to should have been the one which appeared on the cover of LIFE magazine on March 26th, 1965, an issue dedicated to the Selma events.

Please see here: http://hellenicleaders.com/blog/the-images-every-greek-american-should-see-on-martin-luther-king-jr-day/#.VLC1H1XF-PV

I have made the addition of "Archbishop_Iakovos_of_America" in the main page but it may require the knowledge of someone who is technically savvier than myself, so that the _underscores_ do not appear on the archbishop's name linking to the corresponding wikipedia page.

I sincerely hope the above mentioned omissions are not intentional and the product of human error. I also hope my contribution will be accepted and the historical truth restored.

Thank you!

-- Dimitrios G. Panagiotidis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.93.133 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I fixed the link, but left out "of America" from his name. Is that the Archbishop's legal name? I have no knowledge if he is in the photograph of the march which is best known and used in the article, although he is in the LIFE photograph. Maybe someone else will come by to further add to this response, but thank you for your addition and concern that the archbishop be included. Randy Kryn 13:14 10 January, 2015 (UTC)

Silver Moon Cafe
1/16/2015 To `User:Brucehartford': The Silver Moon Cafe did serve blacks, as well as whites. Black were still treated unequal by society at large, because this was the beginning of the end to Jim Crow laws. The owners of the Silver Moon were immigrants who were trying to make a living primarily. They would not have survived in Selma long as activists for black's rights; however, they certainly did not own a white `hangout'. They treated blacks with respect. Kyriakoula once saved a black man from harm, by sneaking him out the back door before he could be attacked by an angry white with a gun. You are unaware of this because you don't know a thing about the history of the cafe. It was not a white hangout, because, in fact, blacks frequented the cafe too. As far as the cafe is concerned, your assertions are historically inaccurate and from an outsider's point of view. In Jim-Crow-South *all* restaurants were segregated (it was a miserable time in history) *not* by law, by the norm of society, ie white patrons did their best to keep the status quo - and did so for way too long, obviously. It was the reason for the marches and protests: Equal rights under the law! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37C5:85A0:78D8:BDC3:2062:2DAE (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I corrected an edit that read "... in front of the Silver Moon Café, a diner owned by Greek immigrants Kyriakoula and Pete Lackeos in Selma Alabama that catered to African Americans and Whites..." to "... that was widely known in Selma to be a place where white racists congregated ..." While one or two blacks might have ordered a cup of coffee at the Silver Moon in the context of testing compliance with the Civil Rights Act, everyone knew it was a hangout for the Klan and posse and blacks stayed clear of it, particularly after dark. When I joined the SCLC staff in Selma in early 1965, I was specifically warned about the Silver Moon as part of my briefing about known danger spots to avoid. On several occasions aferward, when I had to be on the downtown street after dark, I was warned by local African-Americans to avoid the block where the Silver Moon was located even if it meant going out of our way. Brucehartford (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

On Oct 5 an unidentified person reverted my edit and added: "(Kyriakoula and Pete were not in favor of racial segregation but were forced by law to segregate the diner, they were both as liberal as one could be while living at that time in Selma). (Note: All restaurants at that time where segregated or served only whites. It is absolutely not true that white racists congregated at the Silver Moon nor was it widely known as such.)" I undid that reversion based on my personal first-hand knowledge as described above. In addition, it is demonstrably false that restaurants in March 1965 were required by law to segregate because those segregation laws were over-turned by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in July of 1964. Lastly, I don't know who owned the Silver Moon, so I made no changes to that, nor do I know nothing about the personal beliefs of Kyriakoula and Pete so I left as-is the assertion that they "were not in favor of racial segregation." However, it seems to me that since neither of them are historical figures mentioned anywhere else and their personal beliefs had no influence on the events, that the assertion of what they believed has no valid place in this article. Brucehartford (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

To who ever (Brucehartford?) keeps editing this section involving my grandmother and grandfather, Coula and Pete, The Silver Moon was not a place where "white racist congregated." This is an utter lie and I feel very disrespected that you keep suggesting this lie. With respect to your comment :"While one or two blacks might have ordered a cup of coffee at the Silver Moon", Coula frequently served African Americans (daily) and even once saved a drunk African American man from being arrested and or beaten by slipping him quietly through the back door of the diner and making sure he had a ride out of there, that very well may have saved his life that night from some angry whites. She said business is business and saw no difference between the whites and blacks, her own children were subject to racial profiling at times due to there curly hair and dark complexion. In Selma at the time, Coula and Pete were required to segregate their restaurant or close it down otherwise it would have been shut down. In response to " it is demonstrably false that restaurants in March 1965 were required by law to segregate because those segregation laws were over-turned by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in July of 1964," every sensible person knows that in 1965 (only one year or perhaps months after Civil Rights Act of 1964) the law in some places did virtually nothing to recognize the new laws and did nothing to protect African Americans! Are you suggesting otherwise? If you lived in Selma at the time, this should be obvious. You have absolutely no proof that white racists congregated there other than a second hand account. I have a first hand account, direct historical information from my father, aunt and my grandmother and people living in Selma at the time. Also, if Pete noticed any bullying from whites he would kick them out, he did not want to be a mediator between the races, he just wanted to make a living and wanted to respect all humans that walked in the door even if it meant removing racism as much as the law would allow from the cafe. Secondly, all places in the south during this time were frequented by whites who were racist, but to say that this was a congregation point for the KKK is absolutely false and ridiculous, it's a little more extrapolation than necessary and with no proof! The owners were Greek, they were immigrants, and rejected the Klan's presence. EMPLOYEES WERE BOTH BLACK AND WHITE! PATRONS WERE BOTH BLACK AND WHITE! There was a Black section and a White section, and both were served with full knowledge of the other group and that they could not mingle outside their group. You have skewed the fact beyond recognition. Your proof is rumors, nothing more, and I am informing you that you are incorrect, and if you are an open minded individual then you should have the ability to recognize your ignorance. Please, if you disagree, bring evidence to the discussion not rumors. If anything that Cafe represented pioneers of the era, they respected both races unequivocally and to say otherwise is demonstrably false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.43.124 (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible factual error
I believe that the "hangout for whites" talked about in the section "The second march" is actually a black bar. I read this in the history book "A History of US" by Joy Hakim. --Pianohacker (Talk) 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Brucehartford, below, does not know the history. It was not a "white only" establishment. Blacks and whites went there to eat and drink. There is absolutely no evidence for Brucehartford's statement. (See section below on the Silver Moon Cafe.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.88.90 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the Silver Moon cafe was well-known to be a "white only" establishment frequented by extreme segregationists. Brucehartford (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The restaurant the Unitarian Universalist ministers (including James Reeb) ate at was Walker's Cafe on Lawrence St. in Selma. It is described as a soul food restaurant, and was not segregated. (Source: book "Call to Selma" by Richard Leonard.) The three ministers who were attacked went out of the restaurant and turned right, apparently to circle the block clockwise to get back to Sylvan St. and Brown Chapel. Eight to ten other Unitarian Universalist ministers eating at Walker's Cafe went out the door of the cafe and turned left in order to circle the block (counter-clockwise) to get to Brown Chapel on Sylvan (now Martin Luther King) Street. Further down Lawrence Street was the Silver Moon cafe, described as a segregationist hangout. (Source: Interviews with David W. Brown, interviews with other ministers on the Unitarian Universalist Association Web site. All ministers ate at Walker's Cafe on the night of the attack.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.161.106 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Elimination of name of "Bloody Sunday" name and President Johnson
It appears that for over 50 years, Selma was NEVER referred to as "Bloody Sunday"

The real Bloody Sunday took place in Northern Ireland in 1972, when the British gunned down and killed 14 Irishmen.

Those deaths are being disrespected here with the co-opting of this term with an event which is far less "bloody."

The Irish find these efforts to be offensive.

In addition, it should be clear what happened that day in Selma

Later

President Johnson

There seems to be an effort to greatly diminish, and TRASH, the efforts of President Johnson towards black civil rights. President Johnson undertook his efforts with great political risk, and Johnson had to balance many competing interests.

There seems to be several negative comments in the article about President Johnson which are inaccurate.

The efforts of President Johnson were CRUCIAL. Nothing could have happened without him in terms of black civil rights. And also many many white votes were needed to pass the Civil Rights Act.

Let's get with it people -  there is no way that President Johnson can get trashed here. It is just wrong

Coyote Cola (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the summary at the head of the article, the use of the name Bloody Sunday is cited. The publication is The New York Times, two articles are cited. The first was published March 11, 1965, and uses the name Bloody Sunday. The second was published March 6, 1966, and uses the March 11, 1965, and gives a short summary for the use of the name.


 * Many events over the last 130 years are known as Bloody Sunday. Wikipedia has articles covering 18 different events referred to as Bloody Sunday (three in Ireland, two in Poland, two in England, two in the US, one in Russia, one in South Africa, one in Nova Scotia, one in Alsace, one in Germany, one in Canada, one in Turkey, and one in Lithuania. Please read these articles, and if you have any doubts, follow up by reading the material cited.


 * Your assertions, about the use of Bloody Sunday, and about the Lyndon Johnson are not encyclopedic, and lack citations of reliable sources. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; participants with many different points of view work together to produce an encyclopedia. The project could not exist without meticulous citations that support all material that may be controversial.

- Neonorange (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Neonorange. I visited the two links you provided but did not see any info in regards to that article. Those links take me to a "Subscribe Now" page. Please find another source or find a way to display the content without someone having to pay money. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Click on [|this link]. It should take you to a New York Times page that will display the headlines and a beginning sentence or two from the two cited articles plus a few more articles published in 1965 or 1966. I hope this helps.


 * Many sources cited in Wikipedia are not on line. It is not a requirement for citation. The two sources I cited are two articles in The New York Times, and appear as PDF files that are, since the two articles were published before 1980, not available except to paid subscribers and access from some libraries (see my reply above to . You can find Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and verifiability at WP:RS and WP:Citing Sources. - Neonorange (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was recently looking at a Wikipedia article and it referenced something called a "book." Now, I'm not sure what this thing is, but I searched on Google, and apparently it costs money to purchase. Well, I don't have money to spare, so facts that use these "books" as citations are impossible to verify. I am in the process of removing all facts from Wikipedia which use these "books" as references. I hope you all will join me. -R. fiend (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

600 people died? and Naming of the day "Bloody Sunday"
"Seventeen marchers were hospitalized, 600 people died, and the day was nicknamed "Bloody Sunday"." Why does this say that "600 people died"? Was this added in error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.103.182 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is nonsense. No one was killed by police, or anyone else, on "Bloody Sunday" in Selma. "Bloody" refers to beatings with police clubs, not shootings. The police were heavily armed that day, and many who were there are convinced that had the protesters not maintained nonviolent discipline, police violence could easily have escalated to gunfire. But the marchers remained nonviolent and none of the police fired their weapons. Three people were murdered in the context of the Selma Voting Rights Campaign and the March to Montgomery -- Jimmy Lee Jackson in Marion Alabama on February 18, Rev. James Reeb in Selma beaten on March 9 died on March 11, and Mrs. Viola Luizzo in Lowndes County on March 25. But no one was killed in Selma on "Bloody Sunday" March 7.

The ORIGINAL AND REAL "Bloody Sunday" was in Northern Ireland in 1972. This event has been referred to as Bloody Sunday for decades.

14 Irishmen were gunned down and killed by the British that day

That is BLOODY.

There is a clear attempt here to re-write history. It is wrong to deal with fiction, which is apparently motivated by present-day political objectives.

I object - and Im sure may Irish are OFFENDED by the use of the term "Bloody Sunday" for Selma.

In addition, as in this comments page, the events in Selma have to be examined very carefully for accuracy because there appear to be some disputes.

MY ATTEMPTS to correct the article with neutral language which shows both sides have been met with being taken down, so Im looking for a solution

Coyote Cola (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Brucehartford (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that historical revision writing using today's political correctness atmosphere is influencing the language preventing it from being neutral. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The New York Times in March 1966 reported that blacks in Selma commonly referred to that March day as Bloody Sunday- 17 people were hospitalized and 50 had lesser injuries. This is cited in the article. Yes, other peoples in other places have named their own events as Bloody Sunday. There is more than one.Parkwells (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The January 15th Oval Office Recording Gives Away Johnson's Role In Planning The March With King And His Desire To Use It To Enhance Momentum For The War On Poverty
For many who can't distance Johnson from Vietnam, this is hard to accept. But facts are facts and this article must include the important facts and not a biased point of view.2601:2:5500:D8AB:1004:C410:3419:1639 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good faith data aside, the march was not planned by anyone except James Bevel, who directed SCLC's Selma Voting Rights Movement. He initiated and strategized the march in order to channel the people's anger at the murder of Jimmie Lee Jackson into a nonviolent event, something which would both use their negative energy in a positive way and advance to movement's goal of voting rights. Whatever arrangements Dr. King had with the Johnson administration did not impact on the first march, and Bevel and the others agreed that the second march would not take place because they had received word that Judge Johnson would issue the ruling for the march to go forward. In between the second and third march President Johnson gave his address to congress, and demanded the right to vote be expanded and that a voting rights act be moved quickly through the body. Dr. King's involvement in the first march was minimal, and consisted of him agreeing that it should go forward. As for the overall movement, by January 15 SCLC was already in control of the actions, Dr. King had been in and out of town all month, and Bevel was arranging the day-by-day actions. The War on Poverty may have been something Johnson was focused on, but it wasn't involved in SCLC coming to Selma, organizing the people there, and going forward with Rev. Bevel's plans. The phone call may seem important (do you have a link to the transcript?) but meant little or nothing "on the ground" in Selma. It's probably worth mentioning in some form, but not in the infobox under "Goals". Randy Kryn 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again 2601+ (who just linked the phone call to my talk page), a very interesting call and yes, it should be mentioned on the page and the link should be in the external links for anyone who wants to listen to it (EDIT: I've added the link in external links). It still had nothing to do with the goals of the movement, which had been well articulated and planned since late-1963, and nothing to do with suggesting or going ahead with the marches themselves. But Johnson's commitment to moving forward on all areas of civil rights is very evident in the call, and his tactic of possibly having people register in post offices, which are under federal control, was a very good tactic although it turned out not to be needed. I don't know if you saw the 'Selma' movie, but I agree with those who say it misrepresented President Johnson, who, himself, joined the movement when (if not before) he announced to the nation in his Voting Rights Act speech, "We shall overcome". Thanks again for your interest in seeing that Johnson's call to Dr. King has at least a little more attention on the page (although probably not in the infobox, as discussed above). Randy Kryn 00:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Input on proposed infobox
I am seeking input on using infoboxes such as this one in articles that cover the various campaigns and movements throughout the United States during the Civil Rights Movement. Any thoughts, concerns, or questions would be appreciated. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting work into this. I used a sentence from WikiProject Infobox as a start "A quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout", as I am sure you did also.
 * I almost wish you had posted a description of what you were trying to accomplish, rather than a mock-up; I think I could have bought into it more, had you done so.
 * A collage of four iconic images add up to way less than one iconic image. See the infobox for Atlanta; in that infobox, the montage works—there is no iconic, single image of present day Atlanta, so the montage is necessary (and it is well laid out). For specific events, or even, in the case of this article, three events, using up four strong images in the infobox means three of the images will not be available for use near the appropriate sections of text.


 * The extremely wide infobox (more than one third of the page width) is, I think, going to make the page look unbalanced; the header appears too light weight, and the line lengths in the section under the images are, well, too long (and now I find those lines in the present infobox layout are too detailed.
 * Parties to the civil conflict; way too much detail in that section - the military units involved, for example, that information is not even in the text of the article.
 * Using presidential flag doesn't make much sense to me, nor does using the Alabama governor's flag.
 * My feeling is that an infobox should be concise; in size and in content. I think there is a limit to the number of facts in a list that can be absorbed in a glance. But maybe that's just me. — Neonorange (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Neonorange that the infobox should be concise. While these complex events were affected by many different parties on the local, state and national level, this becomes overload; tere is too much detail in this proposal. I also prefer using one image for the infobox and having other images throughout the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I will try to respond to each point. As I respond to each point, please keep in mind that I am seeking a standard format using Template:Infobox civil conflict to place on all civil rights movement related campaigns, not solely the Selma to Montgomery marches article.

Please feel free to mark-up the infobox to better convey your thoughts. If you find an element worth adding to the article, then please tell me or add it to the article.


 * The extremely wide infobox


 * I am not opposed to a different format. The width issue is due to the coding in Template:Infobox civil conflict.  Once three parties were added to the infobox the width of the infobox needed to be increased.  Otherwise, content within each column would display in too narrow a space. The coding for the infobox does not seem to allow for horizontal rows to display distinct parties.  I will  explore alternative formats that fit neatly within the default size for the infobox.


 * How would you display the three parties involved in the Selma to Montgomery marches conflict within the infobox?


 * Parties to the civil conflict/Lead figures


 * First, which specific parties and lead figures would you remove? Please feel free to draw lines through content that you think should not be in the infobox.


 * Secondly, there appear to be special elements for infoboxes to show/hide content, redirect a reader to a separate article, or redirect a reader to a section within an article (see Template:World War I infobox). Any thoughts about using those elements in this infobox and article?


 * Thirdly, what if the sections "Parties to the civil conflict" and/or "Lead figures" were disconnected from the infobox and placed in an alternative section in the article? Possibly, with links connecting the disconnected sections to the infobox.


 * Information that is not in the text of the article


 * My primary source for content in infoboxes are secondary sources, not Wikipedia articles. WP:INFOBOXREF states, "If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information doesn't also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article."


 * For information about the U.S. Army brigades, Alabama National Guard, Federal Marshals, FBI, Task Force Clay Court, and Gen. Henry V. Graham, see  The book is free to download courtesy of the U.S. military here.


 * Use of multiple images versus single iconic image


 * I am not opposed to using a single iconic image. Are you opposed to using multiple images in all articles related to the civil rights movement?  Collages appear to be a standard element used in some infobox articles.


 * Using flag/insignia icons


 * I am not opposed to removing the flags/insignia icons.

Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mitchumch, if you change the collapsed lists to lists per MOS:COLLAPSE, you can reduce the image width. Frietjes (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The present infobox seems to be working well. This one seems way too large for a brief overview, which I thought is the purpose of an infobox. Lots of work went into it though, so I hate to rain on the parade. Randy Kryn 18:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Content removed from article on 25 April 2015
The following content was removed from the article and placed on talk page for discussion due to possible violations of Wikipedia policy.

"... the [Selma to Montgomery] march was Johnson's idea and ..."

The Wikipedia policy in question is WP:EXCEPTIONAL or "Wikipedia:Verifiability" subsection "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." It states,


 * ''"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
 * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
 * challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources. Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material (including but not limited to news reports, books, articles and other publications) involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation; and promotional material released through media in the form of paid news reports. For definitions of sources with conflict of interest:


 * The Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning, Columbia University mentions: "A conflict of interest involves the abuse – actual, apparent, or potential – of the trust that people have in professionals. The simplest working definition states: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. An apparent conflict of interest is one in which a reasonable person would think that the professional's judgment is likely to be compromised. A potential conflict of interest involves a situation that may develop into an actual conflict of interest. It is important to note that a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood. It is also important to note that a conflict of interest is not considered misconduct in research, since the definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism."
 * The New York Times Company forwards this understanding: "Conflicts of interest, real or apparent, may come up in many areas. They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company. And at a time when two-career families are the norm, the civic and professional activities of spouses, family and companions can create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts."
 * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

I could not find "multiple mainstream sources" to support this claim. The assertion is based entirely on an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Califano is identified in the opinion piece as "President Lyndon Johnson’s top assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969."  Mitchumch (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good edit. The march idea had nothing to do with Johnson. It was James Bevel's idea, as mentioned in the article, and with more detail present on this talk page. Randy Kryn 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Selma to Montgomery marches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150423174448/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/selma-mont.shtm to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/selma-mont.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124111458/http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/2746471/article-The-Death-of-Jimmie-Lee-Jackson?instance=special to http://www.annistonstar.com/view/full_story/2746471/article-The-Death-of-Jimmie-Lee-Jackson?instance=special
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150423174448/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/selma-mont.shtm to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/selma-mont.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122214150/http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/selma_montgomery.htm to http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/selma_montgomery.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316162216/http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59det.html to http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59det.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029204717/http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/lifestyle/41333709_1_john-lewis-lewis-s-graphic-novel to https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/lifestyle/41333709_1_john-lewis-lewis-s-graphic-novel
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316162216/http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59det.html to http://www.alabamamoments.state.al.us/sec59det.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Vietnam
IIRC, from what I gathered while watching the film Selma, it implied that President Johnson was not invested in the civil rights movement at all. I gathered that he was only really interested in civil rights so that he could piss off fellow Dems who opposed his Vietnam policy. Hence why George Wallace ran in the '68 election as a third party rather than as Democrat. Is this an accurate statement? MightyArms (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A ridiculous and inaccurate construct roundly, loudly, and nearly universally criticized by virtually every still-living participant in the march and the era itself. LBJ had a his share of major faults, but this was not one of them. The film's promulgation of this calumny has ruined its value as an aid to understanding the era and goes a long way to undercutting its other technical qualities like acting, cinematography and so on. Sensei48 (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Image shows Turnaround Tuesday or Bloody Monday?
On the Edmund Pettus Bridge wiki page, the same image shows demonstrators crossing the bridge. On this page, the caption states it was taken on Turnaround Tuesday, but on the other page, the caption suggests it was taken on Bloody Monday. Would someone be able to properly determine which demonstration this photo is showing? Tiffdmo14 (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)