User talk:Brucehartford

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Open Documentary Project
Dear Bruce,

I am really appreciated for your contribution for wikipedia. First let me introduce myself, My name is Pachinee, I am a member of a documentary film project. We were pleased to announce the launch of "then you win" project (http://thenyouwin.yooook.org), documentaries about non-violence movement in India.

Our inspiration is from the Gandhi philosophy: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

We aim to release it with the rights to copy, modify and distribute under Creative Commons licence, we need everybody’s help to achieve that goal. As I can see you are a honour contributor for wikipedia, so we believe that you might interested in our project.

Please have a look our website and trailer and let me know if you could help us.

Please feel free to contact me anytime if you have any questions. My email is aey@garbure.org.

Many thanks and best regards,

Pachinee Buathong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijiko (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the Greenwood, MS references :) Jwh335 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement Veterans
Mr. Hartford your contributions to WP are wonderful. However, I wanted to ask you how is Civil rights movement veterans notable? I can't find any independent information about the org., and it has no References. Regarding St. Augustine Movement, is crmvet.org a reliable source? The St. Augustine Movement is important and I wanted to contact you before tagging it. Lionelt (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good questions. "Notable" is a value judgement affected by context. On a large societal scale, CRMVets is probably not "notable," but in the context of people interested in the Freedom Movement of the 1960s, it's quite notable. Our Civil Rights Movement Veterans website is used as a research source by everyone from grade-school children to book authors, academic researchers, and documentarians. In the context of a paper-based, traditional encyclopedia CRMVets would certainly not merit an entry, but in the context of an online encyclopedia with over 3 million articles in English including current TV shows, rock bands, and so on, an article on CRMVets does not seem out of place to me.


 * But let's be clear that CRMVets is not an academically neutral source. 98% of the material on CRMVets was written by people who were themselves participants and activists in the Freedom Movement. We were then, and still are, passionate supporters and defenders of the Civil Rights Movement. The purpose of CRMVets is to provide a venue were we can be advocates for our beliefs, where researchers and the public can find our views, in our voices, unfiltered and unmediated. Of course, when I write or edit articles on Wikipedia, I strive for a neutral point of view, but CRMVets is not intended to be neutral.


 * I based the CRMVet St. Augustine articles on input from people who participated in those events and also on research of previously published materials (books, articles, websites, documents, etc). If you click on the links at the end of the CRMVet articles you'll see references to other information sources. The CRMVet articles were also reviewed and amended by St. Augustine Movement veterans before being posted to the site. But make no mistake, the CRMVet articles are written from the point of view of those who participated in, and continue to support, the St. Augustine Movement.
 * Brucehartford (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding notability, with all due respect, the context we Wikipedians are interested in is described in WP:N: "Received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * I applaud your work on crmvet.org. My question regarding CRMVets as used as a source for St. Aug doesn't pertain to neutrality, but that it is self-published. WP:RS: "Self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Lionelt (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the Wiki policy. But crmvet.org is published by Civil rights movement veterans (CRMV) which is an organization, not an individual. That's why I posted an article on CRMV, so that people had access to some background about it. Therefore, because it's an organization, I don't believe that citing crmvet.org as a source is in violation of the Wiki policy. If an organizational website is considered to be "self-published" and thus in violation of the Wiki policy, then that interpretation would have to be applied to ALL organizational and institutional websites that are cited as sources in a great number of Wiki articles. In essence, that would limit sources to traditional print-on-paper media and exclude a vast number of online resources, which I think would be a disservice to Wiki users and contrary to the basic idea of Wikipedia.
 * Brucehartford (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
Thank you for your clarification on the talk page about Rustin's and Randolph's involvement. They both seem to have been the central organizational figures of the march, and as you point out it would be tough to say who was the main figure, or who's idea it was, because they both played different roles. I am not a scholar on the subject, nor was I around during the time of the march, so I feel that I am not knowledgeable enough to make a significant change to this article. It seems to me that the first paragraph in the organization section focuses solely on Randolph and Rustin gets credit in the next paragraph in a long winded awkward sentence awarding credit to a large number of other contributors. I think it would make more sense if the first paragraph talked about Randolph and Rustin and then the next paragraph focused on the other organizers. Alternatively the first paragraph could focus on Randolph, a small second paragraph could then be inserted about Rustin, followed by the next paragraph with the other contributors. The way it is written now, Rustin does not seem very prominent. What do you think? MATThematical (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I revised that section to clarify Rustin's role. Brucehartford (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent edit. You added a lot of valuable detailed information. It must have been quite an experience to be a participant in this march.MATThematical (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Regarding this could you let me know what the inaccuracy is? William Avery (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

nonviolence
I started WikiProject Nonviolence. Hope you're still interested. Kingturtle (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recontextualizing MLK, Jr. as conservative
Hello. I may need your assistance, if you are willing, on the MLK Jr article. With the advent of Glenn Beck's crusade to recategorize MLK as a conservative hero, there are now editors with conservative POV, trying to mitigate King's legacy on the American left. I edited the article to state his role as a leader of the 20th Century Christian left, and his impact as an icon of modern American liberalism. Certain editors, obivously unfamiliar with his heavy social welfare activism, want to claim he is simply a classical liberal and eradicate all links to progressivism or modern liberalism. P.S. I'm intrigued by your About Me... very nice. Motorizer (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If I can be of assistance, I'd be happy to do so. You can contact me directly through the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website by sending email to the webmaster address. Brucehartford (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

your reversion to Greenwood, Mississippi
I left you a message at Talk:Greenwood, Mississippi about your reversion, since that seems like the best place to discuss it. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite right, it was my mistake. Sorry for the confusion. Brucehartford (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Civil rights movement veterans


The article Civil rights movement veterans has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced organization with very little apparent notability. Some Ghits, but most are about the general concept of veterans of the civil rights movement.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BDD (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Civil rights movement veterans creates and maintains the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website which is cited as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles. It is also widely used as an educational and research resource by teachers, documentarians, historians, and so forth. See, for example, the review by TeachingHistory.org. I believe that the Civil rights movement veterans article should remain because those who see the website references may want to know a bit more about the organization that maintains it. Brucehartford (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. I still think the organization doesn't meet notability guidelines, however, so I'll be taking it to AfD. There are plenty of reliable sources without their own articles, and that's fine. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civil rights movement veterans for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil rights movement veterans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Civil rights movement veterans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BDD (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement Veterans
Well, first of all, it should be capitalized in the articles name. Second of all, how did the page get deleted??? It is a very important organization in researching, recording, and store-housing the first-hand history of America's 1950 and 1960 Civil Rights Movement. Boggles the mind, if not the soul. Thirdly, good to meet you, I've never dropped by before although I knew you have edited here. I'd suggest another go at the article (I can't remember reading it when it was up), with the correct capitalization, and the alerting of people who edit the Civil Rights Movement pages who may have an interest in the vote. I certainly did not hear about it, or I would have "testified" on the question. Didn't the people discussing it look at the extent and quality of the website? Randy Kryn 1:23 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Randy, thanks for your kind words and support. You're right that the name should have been capitalized which was the way I wanted it, but for some reason I don't recall I wasn't allowed to do that. This all happened awhile back and I don't recall all the details, but my sense is that one guy decided the article wasn't worthy of Wikipedia's standards and he pushed through the removal over my objections. I suppose I could have waged a fiercer fight, but I decided my time was better spent on building and improving the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website rather than waging a protracted wiki fight. Again, thank you for your expression of support and I'm pleased that you find the website useful. Brucehartford (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe someone in the group can reconstitute the page and have another go at it, it is an important organization regarding Civil Rights Movement history and I really don't think there will be much of a fight about it (just keep a few of us who work on the Civil Rights Movement pages informed that the page is going up or if a problem occurs). I'd start the page myself but I'm not conversant with the extent of your groups members, activities, and research files/tapes, although I do know they are extensive. And I'm assuming you are going to the 50th events at Selma and Marion next year, and the only problem at it should be housing for everyone who'll be coming! Randy Kryn 12:09 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You got to the Selma march edit before me - of the IP who thought that the King of Spain was tragically shot in Marion in 1965. What has the world's education system come to? He was obviously mixing Juan Carlos up with Queen Beatrix! Randy Kryn 18:21 26 October, 2014 (UTC)
 * I just assumed it was the vandals's name, or that of someone he knows, rather than a nonsensical historic reference. But who knows, you might be right. As for the Selma 50th this coming March, I doubt I'll be there. All the Selma hotels are booked up with no rooms available. It looks like it's going to be overrun by notables and the high and mighty, and a real media zoo. I've attended the SNCC 50th, the Freedom Ride 50th, and the Freedom Summer 50th, but the Selma 50th looks like it's going to be more than I can handle. :) Brucehartford (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Decapitalization of the CRM names on Wikipedia
Hi. The same editor who tried for a change in the capitalization has put up an entirely new section of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) attempting this time to disregard his ongoing discussion and change five of our articles here to lower-case. It's beyond my understanding why he is doing this. As I suggested to him, just google or bing even a lower-case term such as 'civil rights movement' (let alone the more proper names) and it's obvious what the common name is. If you are interested please come back and vote once again. This is a very serious attack, imnho, on the legacy of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, and I think it will need many people to comment to save it. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:12 27 December, 2014 (UTC)

Selma invite
Both then and now (I hope you come to Selma in early March, would be nice to meet and talk). The invitation from Amelia Boynton and the others for SCLC to come to Selma was, according to James Bevel (and I guess it can't be used, original research, but the King Center must have records of it), a standing offer which SCLC didn't accept until late 1964. Bevel, Nash, and Orange were working their Alabama Project for voting rights from late-1963 onwards, and Bevel kept going to SCLC board meetings to tell them of their progress. I really should add the Abernathy quotes to the page, nobody else has as yet, and they do define Bevel's role quite well. The section right above this one, the 'discussion' is still going on (your past comment was in another section of the talk page, but I did list you on the 'oppose' list near the bottom because of that comment), and if you can join in it would be another voice in the wilderness (or at least from ages past). Randy Kryn 16:55 18 January, 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. Have you been able to follow and check all the edits at Selma to Montgomery march? They've been coming fast and semi-furious these last few weeks. I hope someone knowledgeable has their eye on all of them. Thanks. Randy Kryn 17:22 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

Question
I would like your input on a proposed article list. The proposed article list is a list of campaigns that were part of the civil rights movement. The list would not be restricted to the southern United States. As an example for proposed list, see List of World War II battles. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Mitchumch (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I could consult with you on that. The tricky problem will be to set a definition and parameters for "campaign." Brucehartford (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I agree with your assessment regarding the tricky problem.  At this point, I am apprehensive about my capacity to determine the parameter and definition for "campaign."  Compiling the list is a way for me to determine the proper scope of the article list.  What are your thoughts?


 * I've also sought the input of User:Randy Kryn. He suggested I create a sandbox page with the proposed list article.  I have done so at User:Mitchumch/sandbox.  It is a skeletal outline for the proposal.  The list is unimpressive in appearance.  First, I have included articles currently listed in the Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement.  Next, I will began to add the civil conflicts listed on the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website in the History & Timeline section.  From there I will began reviewing scholarly/academic sources and add entries as I go along.


 * I welcome any entries you think should be included. Please feel free to add them.  Mitchumch (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

After looking at your sandbox, the term "campaign" in your context is confusing to me because I wouldn't normally consider a speech by the president or a conference to be a "campaign." Perhaps "notable events" or "notable activities" related to the CRM would be more inclusive than "campaign."

As to the tricky question of which events/activities are significant enough to include in your list, perhaps rather than you trying to build a list of "significant" events/activities, instead you list events/activities that already have been chronicled or that in your opinion deserve an article. That's a subtle distinction, but it seems to me the advantage is that you don't have to decide what is, or isn't, significant, you let other people do that by whether or not they choose to create or suggest an article.

In looking at your sandbox list, I suggest you consider grouping components withing general articles rather than separate articles for each component. For example, you propose: St. Augustine movement: 1963–1964, St. Augustine school integration, St. Augustine sit-ins, Woolworths sit-in: July 18, 1963, St. Augustine night marches, St. Augustine selective buying campaign:, Ponce Motor Lodge, Monson Motor Lodge swimming pool incident. But for me, all of those events were in a continuous timeline by the same group of people so I see them as components of the "St. Augustine movement: 1963–1964" that should be included in an article about that movement rather than have separate articles. Brucehartford (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct that a speech or conference is not a movement. I've removed those two entries to reduce confusion.  I still want to develop a list of campaigns or movements.


 * In response to your thoughts about the tricky question, I agree totally.


 * I definitely agree that individual events/activities that were part of a local movement should go into a single article. Let me clarify the reason I'm creating a list of events/activities for a single locality.  I was making a sublist for later use.  Afterwards, I can pick a local movement, work with existing content throughout wikipedia, and combine the material into one article page and build it up from that point.  I've removed redlinks where no article or section within an article exists to remove confusion.


 * One more thing you will eventually notice about the list. My objective with this list is to also capture the counteroffensive campaigns of movement activists or participants.  If I find a wikipedia article, then I will list those entries within the proper locality.


 * On a separate note, I have a question about a conflict of claims on the 1956 timeline article at CRMV. The "Clinton, Tennessee — Desegregation of First White School (August)" section states Clinton High School was the first to desegregate.  Howvever, the Before Clinton or Little Rock, Oak Ridge Integration Made History article from Knoxville News Sentinel contradicts that claim.  What are your thoughts?


 * If I've misunderstood any points, please let me know.   Mitchumch (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I hadn't known about Oak Ridge, I'll review the Timeline article and revise it, thanks. It's noteworthy, though, that at that time, Oak Ridge was governed by the AEC (a federal agency) rather than local elected officials who only had "advisory" power. So the Oak Ridge situation was, to some degree, similar to the desegregation of military-run grade schools on southern military bases that were desegregated by command order in 1953.


 * On another point, Mitch, since developing this list is your project, perhaps it would be better for you to create your own User and Talk pages and run discussions from there. I don't mind that the initial discussion has been started on my page, but since it's your project, your page and your Sandbox is where it should be held. Brucehartford (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. See User talk:Mitchumch/sandbox.  Mitchumch (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I haven't read the latest entries here, or the page itself, mostly because of time (have to sign off again now) but also to give Mitch the time to enact his vision. Will pay closer attention, thanks, and back later. Randy Kryn 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. Mitchumch (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you still with us?
I have a question I want to ask you regarding the term Civil Rights Movement and its etymology? Mitchumch (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm still on the right side of the grass. I just don't have time anymore to monitor and edit Wikipedia pages. I will, however, be hapy to respond to questions. What did you want to know? Brucehartford (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. Did the meaning of the term Civil Rights Movement evolve from the 1940s to the present?  On Wikipedia, the term is entirely treated as a descriptive term or generic term that means any movement for civil rights.  When I read journal articles, research books, thesis, and dissertations the term denotes the event in the mid 20th century.  What has been your experience? Mitchumch (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a complicated question for which I doubt there is any clear-cut answer. When capitalized, "Civil Rights Movement" commonly refers to a distinct period of struggle by Afro-Americans for justice, equality, and full citizenship. There is common agreement dating its beginning in the early to mid-1950s and its ending in the late 1960s, but there are many disagreements as to precisely what (and when) should be considered the beginning and ending events and dates.

There is also the concept of the "Long Civil Rights Movement" of which the "Civil Rights Movement" of the 1950s and 60s was just one component.

My understanding is that it was the mass media who began using the label "Civil Rights Movement" for the protests that began with the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Dr. King and the other boycott leaders spoke about civil rights in the context of public transportation but they didn't formally adopt any larger name or title for what they were doing. I think the press picked up "civil rights" and used it as a handy label. Because the press was using it, activists and leaders then began using the term too because that's what people were reading in the newspapers.

My belief is that had movement participants had the opportunity to label what we were engaged in we would have picked "Freedom Movement" or "Freedom Struggle" or something else using the word "freedom" rather than "civil rights." If you go through the speechs and songs and writings of those engaged in the struggle, usage of "freedom" to describe what we were about occurs far, far more often than "civil rights." We used to chant "Freedom! Freedom!" we never chanted "civil rights! civil rights!" Our songs were "Freedom Songs," our marches were "freedom marches," we called ourselves "freedom riders," "freedom workers," and "freedom fighters." It was the media who called us "civil rights workers." Brucehartford (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, shall "Freedom Movement" (Freedom Struggle seems way too negative for a love and truth movement) be the page's name? Something to discuss at least. Randy Kryn 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that while many activists prefer "Freedom Movement" most students and others search for "Civil Rights Movement" because that's what they're taught in school and that's what the media uses. I'm not sure which page you're referring to, but perhaps a title that used both terms such as "Civil Rights Movement (Freedom Movement)" Brucehartford (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Referring to the main Civil Rights Movement talk page, where a name change RM is in progress. Do you know the Montgomery Bus Boycott page recently changed to lower case, (Montgomery bus boycott]]? The closing is being discussed at it's talk page. So, yes, Freedom Movement should be an alternate name, and we can just add that into the lead sentence if it's not already there. Randy Kryn 1:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the CRM has the meaning of the term changed? Did the term originally denote the movement, then over time became associated with any movement perceived to be pursuing civil rights?  Or did the term always mean any movement perceived to be pursuing civil rights? Mitchumch (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Words and phrases evolve over time among people and the culture as a whole. For me, "Civil Rights Movement" (note capital letters) still denotes the political struggle of Afro-Americans for justice, equality, and full citizenship that took place during the 1950s and 1960s using a unique combination of nonviolent direct action, litigation, and mass-based legislative lobbying.


 * I haven't come across widespread usage of "civil rights movement" (note lower case) denoting efforts at obtaining civil rights by other groups or by Blacks at other times. But I've occasionally seen some such usage. After "Civil Rights Movement" (again, note caps) became a widely recognized cultural term and historic touchstone, the term "civil rights movement" (again, note lower case) began to be used as a referrent by analogy. For example, I've occasionally seen the fight for gay marriage referred to as a "gay civil rights movement." Or I've sometimes seen the efforts of the Civil Rights Congress of the 1940s referred to as "the civil rights movement of the post-war years." Brucehartford (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That answers my question. Thank you.  I really wish you would come back.


 * Before you disappear again I've been trying to identify articles that need to be created. If you ever get some time, then please look at User:Mitchumch/Movement templates.  It's a tool only and won't be used a template on article space.  I'm currently working on year 1963-64.  Thanks again for the response.  Mitchumch (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Question
I wasn't sure if it was okay to ask it here, but I have a question about one of your upcoming History & Timeline entries on the CRMvet website. The year is 1968 for entry "Tuskegee Expels All Students (April)". I wanted to learn more about this, but I'm having trouble tracking down sources. What are some of the sources you are using? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the students involved in the expulsion sent me the info I've copied below. I haven't had time to research it or confirm it.


 * Tuskegee Expulsion
 * Fearful Administrators at Tuskegee Expel 'em All As a result of events on April 5, 6, and 7, 1968, Tuskegee Institute was closed for two weeks and the entire student body expelled. The school s board of trustees was negotiating with a student committee over proposals for the improvement of the school. Student activity outside made everybody inside the meeting feel unable to leave the building for thirteen hours The black sheriff, apparently at the behest of the school's administration, called the Alabama State Patrol and National Guard. SNCC was present for the action and aftermath.


 * When at the end of the two weeks a number of students were not readmitted and others readmitted subject to disciplinary action ACLU's Southern Regional Office obtained a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson (the judge who ordered the state to allow the Selma to Montgomery march after Bloody Sunday).. It voided all dismissals and other disciplinary action until the school provided hearings to each student against whom it had charges. As a result of those hearings (they went on for a good part of the summer with the students represented by Montgomery attorney George W. Dean, Jr.), most of the dismissed students were readmitted and a satisfactory settlement was worked out for the remaining seven.


 * Here's what it comes from (Neil at ACLU found it right away); you might want to use it to add to or otherwise fool with the details.


 * DeVeaux v. Tuskegee Institute. United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, No. 758-E. Complaint filed on April 22, 1968, as a result of events on April 5, 6, and 7, 1968, during which time the school s board of trustees and a student committee with whom they were negotiating over proposals for the improvement of the school were unable to leave the building in which they were meeting for thirteen hours; the Alabama State Patrol and National Guard were called by the Negro Sheriff, the school was closed for two weeks and the entire student body expelled. A number of students were not readmitted and others were readmitted subject to disciplinary action, a temporary restraining order was obtained voiding all dismissals and other disciplinary action until such time as the school provides hearings to each student against whom it has charges. As a result of those hearings, 54 of 61 dismissed students have been readmitted. Satisfactory settlement worked out as to the seven students whose hearings resulted in suspension (the other 54 hearings had resulted in favorable decisions), temporary restraining order made permanent, and the case dismissed. Case concluded. Handled in cooperation with attorney George W. Dean, Jr.
 * Brucehartford (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This helps. I was able to find contemporary newspaper articles.  I appreciate it.  Mitchumch (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

1963 Demonstrations & Justice Dept.
I wanted to share with you 239 pages of Justice Dept. files from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. They are comparable to the 1963 document "Civil Rights: Year End Summary" from the Southern Regional Council posted on CRMVet.org. Happy Holidays.



Mitchumch (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Mitch, thanks for calling those documents to my attention. I've added a link to them on the Civil Rights Movement Veterans website Web Links page. Brucehartford (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

New sections and subsections on CRM article
I'm going to restructure the sections and subsections of the CRM article and would like your input on the ideal sections and subsections of the Civil Rights Movement article. I've encountered your thoughts on this aspect of the main article from:


 * Communism, The CRC, Robeson and the Civil rights movement on 2 February 2011
 * The long civil rights movement on 3 November 2012
 * Change 1954 to 1951? on 12 March 2013
 * Proposed move (WP:YEAR) on 12 March 2013
 * Article split is suggested on 1 December 2014

You expressed on 1 December 2014:


 * ...it seems to me that there are four (rather than two) clear historic sub-periods:


 * 1. 1951-1959, with the events leading up to Brown v. Board of Education, the reactions and resistance to Brown and then the bus boycotts that were in large part inspired by Brown.


 * 2. 1960-1961, with the student-led sit-ins and Freedom rides.


 * 3. 1962-1966, the community-organizing, mass-movement direct-action period, including Albany, voter-registration, Birmingham, March on Washington, St. Augustine, Freedom Summer, Civil Rights Act, Selma, March to Montgomery, Voting Rights Act, and ending with the Meredith March and Grenada Movement.


 * 4. 1966-1968 (or later), political organizing & elections, Poor People's Campaign, King assassination, and so on. I've always considered the Black Power Movement to be an aspect of the larger Civil Rights Movement (though I recognize that many disagree with that) so that would also be in this period.


 * But, as I said, my preference would be to leave it as a single long article.

I'm seeking a structure that better reflects the the growing scholarship (Long Civil Rights Movement) and the move to start the CRM in the 1930s and end in the 1970s. Please ignore the fact that there are three articles called African-American Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia and their collective size is large. I'm only concerned with an ideal structure for the article and would be only restricted to one article, not multiple articles.

On a side note, I was surprised not to see the 1963 Birmingham campaign as a pivot point in your outline.

Would this be something you would be interested in? Mitchumch (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The CRM was between 1955 and 1968, where the same small group of people accomplished the goals they set out to accomplish. Before this there were other activities, few of them successful and none of them based on an overall sustained 'movement' organized and strategized by the same people. As for the Black Power groups, they had nothing to do with the nonviolent CRM, but are an offshoot of individuals dedicated to facing violence with violence. The major 1966 Chicago movement is also a main part of the CRM, and eventually brought about the 1968 Open Housing Act. This concept of 'Long Civil Rights Movement' is a way to dilute the information and history of the actual events and people who systematically and deliberately put forth activities and dialogue which ended much of the long-standing legal segregation in the United States in a relatively very short amount of time. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll try to respond in order to both Mitchumch and Randy Kryn:


 * A. I support the concept of a "Long Civil Rights Movement" analysis and consider it quite valid for the purposes of academic research and scholarship. But I think that for most people using Wikipedia "Civil Rights Movement" refers to the dramatic and historically influential 1950s-1960s period that they are taught about in school. So I lean towards the current three article structure (1865-1896, 1896-1954, 1954-1968). Though I continue to strongly object to 1954 as the inflection point rather than 1951 because the Movement began with the people bringing the Brown cases, not SCOTUS ruling. The ruling is what people learn about, but without the Movement that started in 1951 there would not have been any Brown cases.


 * B. In my four sub-period taxonomy I did include Birmingham in the third period. I draw a distinction between the Movement itself and public awareness of the issues. The mass-march-against-segregation phase began with Albany in 1961 and Birmingham 1963 was a direct outgrowth. But it was Birmingham that broke through into public consciousness and therefore government reaction. If the article is about the Movement then Birmingham does not mark a major shift in strategy-tactics-actors. But if the article is about public perception and awareness of civil rights issues than Birmingham is indeed an inflection point.


 * C. I don't agree with Randy's statement " As for the Black Power groups, they had nothing to do with the nonviolent CRM, but are an offshoot of individuals dedicated to facing violence with violence." First, armed self-defense against white terrorism had always been part of the "nonviolent" Civil Rights Movement. I wouldn't be here to write these words if that had not been the case. All that the Black Power advocates did was publicly proclaim what had been going on for quite some time. More importantly though, Black Power was about far more than "facing violence with violence" it was about economic and political power -- issues grew directly out of the CRM. So I see it as a phase of the CRM. But I can see a valid argument that Black Power should be seen a follow-up movement that grew directly out of the CRM (similar to the Womens Liberation Movement).
 * Brucehartford (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. On point A, most of the scholarship I've encountered has the LCRM beginning in the 1930s.  I have encountered a few academics or scholars push the beginning point further back, but I have not gotten the impression those earlier start points posses consensus yet.


 * In regards to the three article structure, isn't there a difference between the CRM and the black freedom struggle (bfs) with the bfs being a type of "political history of african americans" since 1619 or earlier?


 * On a side note, I am seeking an article structure that breaks away from the "master narrative" of the CRM. There does not appear to be a real attempt to structure the CRM article solely based on academic or scholarly literature only popular perceptions.  Pushing the CRM to 1865 seems incredible in light of the fact CRM is widely called the "Second Reconstruction".  Reconstruction is not called the "first CRM".


 * On point B, I thought the Birmingham campaign was a pivotal event due to the demonstrations that broke out throughout the south and elsewhere in the country. Whenever I encounter a new local study, 1963 seems to be the first year of activity or a resumption of activity.  Am I wrong? Mitchumch (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that pushing the CRM to 1865 does not make sense given the popular understanding/definition of "Civil Rights Movement" as a term. Personally, I've always liked describing the CRM as a "Second Reconstruction." Interestingly, a number of people last year (before the election) were beginning to conceptualize Black Lives Matter and related efforts as a "Third Reconstruction." As a side point, the term "Civil Rights Movement" was a creation of the mass media that participants had to use because that was the term the media used and now its the term history uses. But most of the participants saw it as a "Freedom Movement."

It's true that the national publicity won by Birmingham -- and above all its victories -- sparked a wave of similar protests across the South. But similar mass march and/or mass sit-in protests against segregation and denial of rights protests occurred before Birmingham. For example, Albany GA 1961-62, Baton Rouge LA 1961-62, Durham NC 1962, Greenwood MS 1962-63, Baltimore MD February 63. But none of them garnered the national publicity that Birmingham did and they did not result in significant victories. Brucehartford (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you include scholars and academics in the "popular understanding/definition of 'Civil Rights Movement' as a term"? Or only the general public? Mitchumch (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think most scholars/academics are used to using CRM as the label either because they accept it themselves without questioning it or because if they use some other label their audience won't understand what they're talking about. We originally called our website "Freedom Movement Veterans" but no one was searching for that term so we had no traffic, once we changed it to "Civil Rights Movement Veterans" our traffic increased ten-fold. Article writers, book authors, etc, all face that same reality. Even the academics posing the "Long Civil Rights Movement" concept use "Civil Rights" as a touchstone to popular understanding, though I know that in private conversation some of them tend to articulate a "Long Freedom Struggle" rather than a "Long CRM." Brucehartford (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Civil Rights Movement
Hi Bruce, and I see you haven't edited in awhile. Editor Coffee has created a fast-moving (mainly because of his work and inspiration) and overdue WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, and I hope this can interest you to edit again. Maybe others from your project would like to join in as well, if you have any suggestions or are inspired to contact them. Wikipedia's Civil Rights Movement collection is very good, and with Coffee's work, is growing daily. With the WikiProject another nice space seems to have been created for sharing and improving historical data, and there is nobody or anything better to contribute to the project than you and others from CRMV. Just wanted to reach you with the update, and I hope all is going well with you and yours. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Randy, good to hear from you and thanks for the invite. The WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement sounds like a necessary and important project. Unfortunately between managing the ever-growing Civil Rights Movement Veterans website, finishing my book and getting it published, work with the SNCC Legacy Project, and ongoing political work resisting the Trump/Republican agenda I simply don't have time to take it on.


 * All I can offer is:
 * 1. If there are specific questions you'd like me to offer an opinion on, I'd be happy to do so.
 * 2. If you send me an email describing the project and inviting peoples participation, I'll forward it to other Civil Rights Movement veterans to see if any of them are interested.

Brucehartford (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good luck on all your work. I'm surprised you actually answered so quickly. Thanks for your offer, and I'll tell Coffee and see if he wants to draft a letter. Since you asked about specific questions you could offer an opinion on, there is an ongoing RM/RfC at the Civil Rights Movement talk page which is debating if the present title should change and if the name should just be upper-cased "Civil Rights Movement". I look forward to your book. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I took a look at that discussion, but it's way too Wiki-wonky for me. I and most others I know always capitalize "Civil Rights Movement" when we're referring to what we see as a distinct, named, historical event that occurred between 1951 and 1968. Same as "World War II" or "Great Depression." Yes, of course, there were and are other social movements for civil rights here and in other countries, so it's also a non-capitalized generic term. And when used as the generic not capitalized. For me, the purpose of words and language are for communication so they should be used as most people understand them. Brucehartford (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please just copy what you just wrote above (without the first sentence) and pop it onto the RM? You summarize the "case" very well in that paragraph. If not, would you mind if I copy it and credit it to this talk page? It's a good statement which may go a long way in doing the right thing for the title of the page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You go ahead and do it as you suggest above. Thanks. Brucehartford (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I sent in the email! I hope that's good enough. &mdash; Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Got it.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eagleash was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Brucehartford/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Brucehartford/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Brucehartford/sandbox Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagleash&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Brucehartford/sandbox reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eagleash (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Brucehartford. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

My sandbox attempt at an article for CRMA
Hi User:Brucehartford! I'm now on fixing up the article that you proposed a few weeks ago and let me know about. See User:RobLa/sandbox/Civil Rights Movement Archive for the beginnings of my attempt to create an article for the CRMA. As soon as I'm done creating a draft that I think should be a Wikipedia article, I plan to move what I've done over to Draft:Civil Rights Movement Archive. -- RobLa (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

p.s. (for everyone else): I'm receiving no financial consideration for my work on User:RobLa/sandbox/Civil Rights Movement Archive. Bruce and I have both volunteered on political campaigns (possibly even the same ones) and we've talked about a number of things at activist-oriented events in San Francisco. My motive for creating it is because I think CRMvets.org is really neat, and I'm almost positive the subject is "notable" by English Wikipedia standards. Prior to 2017, I did not know Bruce, but since meeting him and learning about his work on the CRMVets website, I'm very impressed by his work. I'm hoping he donates more of his work to English Wikipedia. -- RobLa (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:Brucehartford/sandbox
Hello, Brucehartford. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Brucehartford/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Brucehartford/sandbox


Hello, Brucehartford. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)