[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Civil rights movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 1, 1968

[edit]

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

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

Jewish support for the movement

[edit]

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

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

This is a recent edition to the page and doesn't seem to provide any additional detail aside from a case of Original research which isn't supported. Galdrack (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Riots not a part of the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement

[edit]

The Harlem, Watts, and other riots currently have large sections on this page, placed in a chronological rendition as if they were part of the CRM. They were not. The major actions of the Civil Rights Movement, the topic of this page, were organized, strategized, and nonviolently carried out by the same very small group of affiliated activists, and they had nothing to do with those riots. Arguably the only tangentially related destructive civil unrest were the events on the night of Dr. King's tragic and deeply felt death. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Kerner Commission should be the only section containing information about the 1965-1967 riots, as the commission's report was used to push forward the 1968 Fair Housing Act. These mid-1960s riots were not part of the focus of this page, the 1954-1968 nonviolent Civil Rights Movement. Editors ask for page brevity, and this is a main area where that brevity can be achieved, along with some of the unrelated additional sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should be included if there is mention of the civil unrest in WP:RS.

  • Encyclopædia Britannica -- "Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement" covers the Watts and Detroit Riots.
  • Eyes on the Prize (PBS documentary series) -- Riots are covered in "Two Societies (1965–68)" + "The Promised Land (1967–68)"
  • "The Civil Rights Movement in America: From Black Nationalism to the Women's Political Council" (2015) p. 186–188
  • "The Civil Rights Movement: A Documentary Reader" (2020), publisher: Wiley, -- Chapter 10: Civil Rights Movement outside the South (p. 181–) covers the Long, Hot Summers
  • "Race Relations in the United States, 1960–1980" (2007) p. 35–41
  • U.S. History -- Civil Rights Movement covers "long, hot summers" with mention in synopsis and a sub-section

These are just a few. Oluwasegu (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oluwasegu. There was no civil unrest in the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement. Its participants did nothing more than sit in chairs, stand in line, and take walks. They did so with love, song, and prayer. Most importantly, with trust, training, self-control and group discipline, they did not fight back or react in-kind when others brought anger, hate, and violence into the situations. The movement's nonviolent strategies and tactics were designed to open dialogues to expose and drain societal insanity in American citizens. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement itself, based on the teachings of Jesus, Tolstoy, and Gandhi, was remarkably but expectedly peaceful. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to say that many "reliable sources", failing to understand and define the actual parameters and purposes of the movement, have not given Wikipedia editors plenty of material to incorporate into its rendition of the era. Wikipedia, designed to work within a maelstrom of information, presents all well-sourced points of view whether accurate or miscast as truth. Wales, Sanger, and other Wikipedians created and create Wikipedia as a treasure of and for civilization, a gift to the world designed to evolve in real-time. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Citizen Nation

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 6 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HungryLama (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cross24country.

— Assignment last updated by Jeans775 (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_rights_movement&oldid=1263237501"