Talk:Civil rights movement

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

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]
And yet Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources rather than users' opinions regarding the "actual parameters" of the movement. Here's another such source by historian Donald G. Nieman from his book-length history of civil rights in America:
Deadly uprisings erupted like clockwork during the long, hot summers of the mid- and late 1960s, shifting public attention to the urban North. Beginning in Harlem in 1964 and Watts the following summer, uprisings swept 43 cities in 1966 and 164 urban areas in 1967. [...] In the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, the uprising lasted for four days and left 34 dead, more than 1,000 injured, and almost 1,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. Three years later, in Detroit, the toll was even worse: 43 persons died, well over 1,000 were injured, and 1,300 buildings were burned.[1]
Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but pretending that riots played no part in the civil rights movement plays into the hands of those who wish to portray contemporary struggles for social justice like Black Lives Matter as uniquely violent and destructive. It's just bad revisionist history. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you provided says nothing about the riots being a part of the Civil Rights Movement. Riots were not included in the strategy and tactics of the movement leaders and organizers, which is what the article and this discussion are about. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article is about the movement, which is a larger topic than the movement's leaders and their strategy. The source directly states that the riots were motivated by:
the contradiction between the promise of the civil rights movement, the resistance of local officials to their demands, and the hopelessness of their situation
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your new quote again separates the Civil Rights Movement from the era's riots. The riots may have been in some incorrect response to the "promise of the civil rights movement" but this, again, pertains to events happening outside of the movement structure. See the lead of Social movement, which states "A social movement is either a loosely or carefully organized effort by a large group of people to achieve a particular goal, typically a social or political one." This was a "carefully organized effort" developed in a thought-out and unified way by the few people who consistently organized and directed the events and planned directions of the movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the riots are covered in the context of the civil rights movement, by sources focused on the civil rights movement itself. Therefore, information about riots is WP:DUE for inclusion and should receive some mention in this article per WP:RELART. It doesn't matter whether you think the riots were "incorrect" or not. We go by published, reliable sources, not random users' opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nieman, Donald G. (2020). "The Civil Rights Movement and American Law, 1950–1969". Promises to Keep: African Americans and the Constitutional Order, 1776 to the Present (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 188. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190071639.003.0006. ISBN 978-0-1900-7165-3.

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]

The civil rights movement

[edit]

The civil rights movement was a social movement and campaign in the United States from 1954 to 1968 209.147.50.202 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"main phase"

[edit]

I edited this article to include the bracketed phrase "main phase" in the dates cell of the infobox. My edit summary was this:

Necessary to point that out, as civil rights activism was certainly not rigidly contained within those dates.

@Randy Kryn: reverted me, leaving the following edit summary:

removed the open-ended 'main phase' (the Civil Rights Movement was one extended event, organized and run by the same small group of individuals)

Randy, I must call you out for the judgement you've employed here, which is problematic at best and risks oversimplification. One read of the main body of this article will tell you that the movement was not how you described it, but far broader than that, and it certainly was not required to wait until the Topeka ruling before being allowed to commence. It was not a clique effort, it was the collective struggle of the Black community as a whole, and dates back to Reconstruction. Could I please have some feedback from the community regarding the addition of the "main phase" clause? GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GOLDIEM J, thanks for the concern. This is the problem that was brought about with the RM that changed the casing from 'Civil Rights Movement' to 'civil rights movement'. This article is about the Civil Rights Movement, a unified movement which occurred between 1954-1968 (some would say 1955, when the Montgomery Bus Boycott began). Like 'World War II' and many other major historical events, the Civil Rights Movement was developed, led, taught (the teaching of nonviolence to participants) and carried out by a relatively small group of people in a few organizations. It had a unified and specific goal: to end legalized segregation in the United States, and accomplished that goal over a period of years (mainly between 1960 and 1968) and congressional acts. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: The most pressing concern for me in that response is confusion. I understand that for you, "Civil Rights Movement" primarily refers to a highly planned and organised movement. However, my concern is that for the people who this was for, they would never define it as being limited to that main phase; they see that main phase as just a small culmination of a century of work. It wasn't some new idea a few political radicals had to start disagreeing with Jim Crow laws; they were resisting them for much longer than that. So from their perspective, I imagine that using "Civil Rights Movement" to refer to the main phase exclusively would be quite reductive. However, I do agree that there's a case to be made to further define the main phase of the movement, as it became more systematically organised by this point and was when most of the progress was made. That said, I still believe it's necessary to include the "main phase" clause in the dates cell for disambiguative purposes. May I make clear that this would not be an open-ended use of the phrase. GOLDIEM J (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GOLDIEM J, thanks. It would fix much of the confusion over terms if this page were named 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement. Like other major historical events with proper names, the Civil Rights Movement had the agreement and participation of known individuals and a planned, and achieved, end-result. Uppercased, 'Civil Rights Movement' refers to this page topic. Lowercased it means the same thing (although wrongly styled). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: I don't entirely agree with that reasoning, I'm afraid. It's still a proper noun even when applied in the broader sense, and the meaning of those three words is still quite flexible either way. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American History Since 1876

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2025 and 25 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jodynope (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Comicbookgirl3 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People#Add James Bevel back to United States activists at level 5 (should actually be at least in 4)

[edit]

This is an ongoing discussion and !vote to decide if James Bevel should be added back to the level 5 Vital articles list (he was removed in early 2024). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article assessment for Diane Nash

[edit]

There is a discussion and !vote assessment for Diane Nash at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People#Add Diane Nash, Level 5 United States activists that editors of this page may find of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"White Moderate" section

[edit]

The source used in that section was saying something entirely different.

Source: "Most of them (white southerners) did not like the idea of black civil rights. They were opposed to the civil rights movement and to racial equality. But they weren't opposed enough to join the clan or to be violent about it."

I've edited the section to better reflect the source. Furthermore, the section should probably be renamed "White southerners" or something along those lines, as "white moderate" can be misconstrued. I'll to through with the title change unless a good argument to the contrary is presented. DragonYak2000 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]