Talk:Civil rights movements

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

Missing Topics and Themes[edit]

While I was really happy to see that a section on the Chicano Movement was included in the section on civil rights in the U.S., it doesn't say anything about civil rights leader Cesar E. Chavez and the UFW farmworkers' movement (which was more than a labor movement--it was a fight for civil rights). I also noticed that this article is in need of a write up on the Young Lords, who set up a lot of programs and fought for civil rights primarily in New York City and Chicago. I hope that someone can do this faster than I'm able to. Thanks.

Revolition (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 30 April 2012[edit]

Hi. There's a grammer error in this page. Under the section 'Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland' on the 5th line down at the far right of the page, it reads 'better housing and committed itself to end discrimination in employment'. The 'end' of that phrase should be changed to 'ending' Thanks Raalu (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Bility (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There is also a spelling error in the Quiet Revolution section. I am guessing this page is being scuttled on purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.45.198 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 December 2012[edit]

The statement that loyalist were aided by RUC is completely untrue . No mention is made of the reality that more loyalist were arrested than republicans. More loyalist were Interned also than republicans. Lastly housing conditions and employment issues effected both working class communities not just Catholics . Lastly NO mention is made of IRA murder squads to genocidely remove irish Protestants from border areas. IRA have been bombing and killing Irishmen since 1920 they and their supporters remain the sworn enemies of Northern Ireland and have alongside the Dublin government never recognised the democratic choice of Irishmen to remain in UK . Such articles need o be accurate and fair otherwise they can escalate tensions by feeding false propaganda in favour of one side of a civil conflict . Most of his article clearly sides and promotes IRA terrorist agenda 176.252.102.203 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored edit request.
Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 March 2013[edit]

Current sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States.
Fixed sentence:
The civil rights movement in the United States includes noted legislation and organized efforts to abolish public and private acts of racial discrimination *against* African Americans and other disadvantaged groups between 1954 to 1968, particularly in the southern United States. Gunfulker (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed a long time ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion - List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches[edit]

You may be interested in this deletion discussion for the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches. Diego (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 3 May 2013 / Canadian reference off-topic[edit]

The references to Quebec's Quiet Revolution and October Crisis are well made, but off-topic, as they do not refer to segregated groups fighting for equality (essence of the civil rights movement). As for Quebec's sovereign movement, it is literally the opposite of a civil rights movement, for it seeks to separate the Quebecois from the Canadian as distinct citizens whereas a civil rights movement would try to integrate them better. I suggest the removal of the whole Canadian section from this article. Xachar (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose name change to article title[edit]

This article seems to be about Global movements for civil rights or Movements for civil rights. A review of the What links here link will display numerous articles that are meant to link to the American movement. The title of this article, as denoted in scholarly publications and popular understanding, is associated with the Civil Rights Movement that occurred in the southern region of the United States. Also, I am not able to find secondary sources that use the title of this article to denote the collection of movements reflected in the article. Please post any sources that support this title. Lastly, the notes section for this article provides no link to any academic or newspaper sources that support the title of this article. Any thoughts on this?

--Mitchumch (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article "Civil Rights Movement" moved to article "Movements for civil rights."
--Mitchumch (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2015[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. The discussion as a whole seems to produce somewhat more heat than light, and I'm sure I'll catch hell from someone no matter how the close turns out, but the bottom line issues are:

  1. most participants feel that the current title is awkward phrasing;
  2. the proposed move target has already redirected here for over a year and a half, obviating much of the concern that such a title leading to this content will cause confusion;
  3. a substantial majority of participants in the discussion favor the proposed move, validly citing the predominant use of the phrase to generally describe movement that have the aim of increasing the civil rights of various peoples, the grammatical naturalness of the phrase, and the slight conciseness advantage;
  4. although it has been noted that the African American civil rights movement can properly be seen as many discrete events, it seems unusual in the literature to refer to this as "movements" rather than a "movement"; and
  5. as noted in the discussion, this does not affect existing redirects of Civil rights movement or Civil Rights Movement; however, the use of a plural reference to "movements" is so unusual with reference to any one specific movement that it should suffice to distinguish these concepts (and apparently already has, for as long as "Civil rights movements" has redirected here. bd2412 T 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Movements for civil rights → Civil rights movements – Present article name fails WP:NC, as it is not common, concise or particularly recognizable, and is not a phrase many would search for. It was arrived at in a unilateral move that was not advertised via RM (see immediately above on this article's talk page), to usurp the titles Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movement, and redirect them to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), which may raise WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently. That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I'm not asking that the move be reverted to status quo ante. Rather, the subject of this article is intrinsically plural in a way that satisfies WP:NCPLURAL (and its present name is plural, so that aspect of the name wouldn't change). It's a WP:CONCEPTDAB – essentially an expanded-prose list article in form. Using the title Civil rights movements (lower case per WP:NCCAPS) seems most appropriate. The editor who moved it made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]" to the awkward and unsourced poorly sourced and uncommon "movement[s] for civil rights" in the text, which should be put back the way they were. This article's existence, at a proper title, would probably also obviate any need for a Civil rights movement (disambiguation) page, as was under some discussion at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Follow-on discussion of nomination is at #Mitchumch and SMcCandlish discussion, below.
  • Support – It's plural either way; might as well use the more common phrasing. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on discussion of that comment is at #Mitchumch and Dicklyon discussion, below.
  • Support Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English. GregKaye 20:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on discussion of that comment is at #Mitchumch and GregKay discussion, below.
  • Support per rationale of the nom. & GregKaye.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my responses to each point the nominator presented as a rational. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose too likely to get confused with American movements and thus be overlooked by people interested in movements outside the USA. It should have a term like "global" in the title. Rjensen (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification: @Rjensen: You've said "oppose", but have not addressed the question posed by the RM, of word order. You've only suggested the addition of another word. Do you actually propose, and have a rationale for, using the longer "movements for civil rights" phrasing, whether we add an adjective or not? Below, you provide 7 examples that actually lend support to the proposal for the shorter name, so I'm confused about what your actual opinion/intent is. As for the suggested addition, I have to observe that adding "global" (or "worldwide" or some other synonym) would change and limit the scope of the article itself to covering only civil rights movements that are global in nature, which depending upon one's definitions might even be none of them. This is a rename discussion, not a re-scoping discussion. Please suggest an actual title, if you disagree with both the current one and the proposed one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The present phrasing is just plain awkward, and not likely to be used by anyone. Let's use the usual phrasing. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME (names must be natural) and WP:CONCISE - the current title sounds like someone was trying to move the article, but there was history at Civil rights movements, so an alternate title was picked. Red Slash 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See theses 7 examples 1) "Additionally, a comparison of the two movements permits a sustained discussion regarding the divisive power of race, the nature of racial formation, and the concomitant racial transformations that both civil rights movements wrought." Brian D. Behnken (2011). Fighting Their Own Battles: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Texas. Univ of North Carolina Press. p. 4.; 2) "The resistance movements in these [Asian] societies also call themselves 'civil rights' movements" Olle Törnquist ed. (1991). Asian Societies in Comparative Perspective: Papers Presented at the 7th Annual Conference of the Nordic Association for Southeast Asian Studies, Møn, Denmark, 1990. NIAS Press. p. 336. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help); 3) in USA: " mobilised in opposition to the Vietnam War, supported civil rights movements such as women's and gay liberation, and raised awareness of environmental" Judith Bara & Mark Pennington (2009). Comparative Politics. SAGE. p. 277.; 4) " explores the African American and Hispanic civil rights movements within a comparative framework." Debra A. Reid (2009). Seeking Inalienable Rights: Texans and Their Quests for Justice. Texas A&M UP. p. 169.; 5) "Civil rights movements of blacks and Catholics" Frank Wright (1988). Northern Ireland: A Comparative Analysis. p. 164.; 6) Goodwin, Jeff, and Steven Pfaff. "Emotion work in high-risk social movements: Managing fear in the US and East German civil rights movements." in Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (2001): 282-302; 7) google books uses the category " Civil rights movements—United States—History—2oth century." Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title just looks weird. The proposed title is far more intuitive in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The term "civil rights movements" is 1 character more than the term "civil rights movement." Both terms denote different things. As User:Rjensen has stated, this will confuse readers and editors. If this page is retitled, then a disambiguation page will be created. Using a term that is not ambiguous will avoid such a page. Secondly, neither term has a single reliable source that defines the term. The absence of such a source will place the article title and definition as written within the lede in peril of being labeled original research. I am willing to assist in finding a source, but do not consider it my sole responsibility. There is a possibility that another term - not known by any one here, that has an explicitly defined definition, thoroughly examined topic, with an abundance of supporting and reliable source material - may exists. Again, I am willing to assist in finding that term, but do not consider it my sole responsibility. Mitchumch (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on discussion of that comment is at #SMcCandlish and Mitchumch discussion, below.
  • Support - Should be moved based on recognizability alone which is an indicator of the common use of the name. It is more concise than the current title and its what a reader will naturally look for. The new name is also consistent with other articles. For example you would not name the article, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954), to African-American Movement for Civil rights. Mbcap (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose, (EDIT: Many of the oppose arguments and discussions seem to be on track. The Civil Rights Movement - the words themselves - may be common to America in the civil rights era and might be cemented into that enough so this move doesn't work well, 22 April) while noting that the nom itself says the 'Civil Rights Movement' link won't be changed, that this name could get confusing and so edits to the page should make the distinction of the African-American Civil Rights Movement clear, and noting that this change should not be used to change the capitalization of the main African-American Civil Rights Movement pages. Also asking that the closer make this clear in their closing comments. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:08 31 March, 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, as I read most of the Mitchmunch discussions and don't understand his objection. It not clear why Mike Cline thought more conversation would be in order, but that's my two bits. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeUndecided, but leaning oppose. I find Mitchumch's arguments to be compelling, and am frankly off-put by the mud being thrown (WP:DE, WP:TLDR, "torrent of nitpicking to sludge through", "The speech of Yoda, to be avoiding we are", etc. etc.) which is rather unhelpful. I'm sleeping on this one, before expanding on my thoughts below, but leave this red-link to suggest where I'm going with this: African-American Rights Movement (or African-American rights movement). I'm also interested in the origins of the term "civil rights movement". Apparently sometime after the founding of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, the focus moved from "Human" to "Civil" rights. Do any "civil rights movements" predate the African-American movement, or are other like-named movements piggybacking on that primary usage? Wbm1058 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Civil Rights, in the case of the American Civil Rights Movement, meant simply obtaining basic legal rights that other adult Americans had. The right of vote, to buy or rent homes or apartments if they were on the market, the right to access and use public stores, hotels, transportation, etc. Rights which were legal for some and not for others. The name may be unique to the start of the major American Civil Rights Movement - a movement which obtained, in a span of eight years, all that it set out to do. Randy Kryn 5:02 6 April, 2015 (UTC)
    I'm expanding on my thoughts below: #The meaning of civil rights. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    16 days have passed since my April 6 comments and concerns, without further comment. As nobody has tried to persuade me otherwise, I'm making "oppose" my final answer. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that if this move is not made, Civil rights movements should be retargeted to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) to match Civil rights movement, yes? If the point is that "civil rights movement(s)" is too closely associated with the African-American movement, then that's where it should go, right? I'm definitely leaning support here. --BDD (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The "African-American Civil Rights Movement" page can almost be named "Civil Rights Movement" it's so closely connected to the term. Women's rights seems to have its own terms, as do other forms of rights movements. The term 'Civil rights movements" does seem like a good redirect to the page, as the CRM was made up of individual movements in cities which were tied together by an overall plan conceived and carried out by the same individuals. Randy Kryn 11:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words. If the CRM was made up of individual movements, why wouldn't CRMs be an appropriate redirect there? --BDD (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I agree. By 'individual' movements I mean that the overall American Civil Rights Movement was a progression of events which have come to be called movements. From the Sit-ins, to the Freedom Rides, to the Open Theater actions, to Mississppi, Birmingham, Selma, Chicago, etc. the CRM leaders chose various venues for their next organized steps in the full overturning of legal desegregation laws and the related legally-induced cultural restrictions. They were all part of the same large movement, although they each have individual names (much as individual battles in a war are included as part of the overall war). Randy Kryn 12:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing currently links to Civil rights movements in article-space. That redirect originally went to Civil Rights Movement in February 2006, then, three days later, to Civil rights, then, a year later, to Civil rights movement. So, it's danced around in the grey zone between the Proper Name for the African-American movements and the generic "bill of rights" usage. African-American Civil Rights Movement was primarily attributed to the 1950s and 60s on 08:46, 31 July 2006, when Vircabutar moved page African-American Civil Rights Movement to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1965-1968) (Additional time frame). Making "Civil rights movements" plural may be sufficient to mean the reader is looking for more than just the 50s–60s era article. What we are lacking is a broad overview of African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95), African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) and African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). "Civil rights movements" should redirect to such an overview, which might even make room for a small section about other movements such as in Northern Ireland – not a comprehensive discussion of other movements, only a discussion of how they were inspired by or inspired the African American movement. I can even see making "Civil rights movements" a simple set-index list article. The current "Movements for civil rights" just seems too far off-base regarding weight and POV to be called "Civil rights movements" in its current form: too much emphasis is on the 1960s. Maybe if it were re-titled 1960s civil rights movements, and gave priority to the African-American movement over the others, we would have a good compromise. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted?[edit]

Mike Cline, would you mind explaining why you've decided to relist the discussion, please? Thank you! Red Slash 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe will benefit from further discussion. Final answer --Mike Cline (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Please confine further extended discussions, rebuttals, and sourcing sprees, pro or con, to this subsection.

Mitchumch and SMcCandlish discussion[edit]

This discussion was moved here from the top of the Comments (!voting) section above.
  • I will address each point [of the RM nomination] in order of appearance:
  • "Present article name fails WP:NC, as it is not common"
First, WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Furthermore, subsection "Use commonly recognizable names" states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
Secondly, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." If this point is true, then how can the plural form of the term "civil rights movement" become the WP:COMMONNAME for this article?
Lastly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights." Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
  • "Present article name fails WP:NC, as it is not ... concise or particularly recognizable"
First, WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
Secondly, to address the phrase "is no longer than necessary" the term "Movements for civil rights" is 26 characters long, including spaces. The term "Civil rights movements" is 22 characters long, including spaces. A difference of 4 characters. The length of the term "Movements for civil rights" is concise.
Thirdly, to address the phrase "distinguish it from other subjects" the term "Movements for civil rights," has no other comparable term that is similar to it when searched on Wikipedia. The term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character. The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement." The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights." The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)." Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources. If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them.
Lastly, WP:NC also states, "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015. This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it. Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is particularly recognizable. The term "Civil rights movements" is not particularly recognizable.
  • "Present article name fails WP:NC, ... is not a phrase many would search for"
WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015. This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it. Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is particularly recognizable. The term "Movements for civil rights" is a phrase many search for. The term "Civil rights movements" is a phrase many do not search for.
  • "It was arrived at in a unilateral move that was not advertised via RM (see immediately above on this article's talk page)"
WP:RM or "Wikipedia:Requested moves" states, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." I am an autoconfirmed user. On 12 October 2013, I posted on the article talk page an inquiry titled "Propose name change to article title" without a response for seven days. This article had and continues to have a large number of page watchers. Given the number of page watchers, a seven day wait for a response, and the lack of response I then reached the conclusion "there was no reason to expect a dispute concerning" this move. After I performed the move using the Move function and no one reverted the move, no one contacted me to dispute the move, no one posted anything on the article talk page to discuss the move, I again came to the conclusion that the move was not controversial. No one reverted the move and/or disputed the move for 15 months.
First, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC."
Secondly, the term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character. The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement." The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights." The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)." Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources. If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them.
By contrast, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG). That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources. The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States.
For a list of sources, please see:
First, WP:RM or "Wikipedia:Requested moves" states, "Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." I am an autoconfirmed user. On 12 October 2013, I posted on the article talk page an inquiry titled "Propose name change to article title" without a response for seven days. This article had and continues to have a large number of page watchers. Given the number of page watchers, a seven day wait for a response, and the lack of response I then reached the conclusion "there was no reason to expect a dispute concerning" this move. After I performed the move using the Move function and no one reverted the move, no one contacted me to dispute the move, no one posted anything on the article talk page to discuss the move, I again came to the conclusion that the move was not controversial. No one reverted the move and/or disputed the move for 15 months.
Secondly, this claim contradicts the point "That said, the Google test at least suggests that the present redirect target of Civil rights movement (lower case or not) probably is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC." The point affirms that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "civil rights movement" is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).
Lastly, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG). That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources. The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States. Please see sources cited for point "It was arrived at in a unilateral move ... to usurp the titles Civil Rights Movement and Civil rights movement."
  • "which may raise WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently."
First, please cite the reliable English-language sources for the claim "different audiences use this phrase differently."
Secondly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights." Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
First, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from "Wikipedia:Disambiguation" states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
Secondly, it states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."
Lastly, this claim contradicts the point "which may raise WP:NPOV issues, since different audiences use this phrase differently."
  • "the subject of this article is intrinsically plural in a way that satisfies WP:NCPLURAL (and its present name is plural, so that aspect of the name wouldn't change)."
First, WP:NCPLURAL or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) states, "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles—for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well." WP:NCPLURAL also states, "There are two main types of exceptions to this rule:
  • Articles on groups or classes of specific things.
  • Cases where the title only exists in the plural."
Secondly, the term "Civil rights movements" and the term "Civil rights movement" are distinguished by 1 character. The term "Civil rights movements" is not synonymous with the term "Civil rights movement." The term "Civil rights movements" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "Movements for civil rights." The term "Civil rights movement" currently serves as a redirect term to the article "African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68)." Also, the meaning as stated in the article lede can not be verified through reliable English-language sources. If there are reliable sources that claim the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s," then please cite them.
Thirdly, please provide a list of WP:COMMONNAME terms from reliable English-language sources that are used to refer to the content in the article "Movements for civil rights." Also, please cite the sources of those terms.
Lastly, by contrast, the term "civil rights movement" is well defined by Scholarship (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) or News organizations (WP:NEWSORG). That claim is well established by an abundance of reliable English-language sources. The term is also the WP:COMMONNAME for the social movement in the United States.
For a list of sources, please see:
  • "It's essentially an expanded-prose list article in form."
No thoughts on this point.
No thoughts on this point.
  • "The editor who moved it made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]" to the awkward and unsourced "movement[s] for civil rights" in the text, which should be put back the way they were."
First, to address the point, "made similar undiscussed changes of "civil rights movement[s]"" I made those edits 15 months ago. To my knowledge, no one reverted the edits nor engaged in a discussion surrounding the edits. Therefore, the response to those edits did not require me to engage in a discussion.
Secondly, to address the term "awkward" this is a personal opinion. I have no comment.
Thirdly, to address the term "unsourced" the term "movements for civil rights" when placed within a sentence describes the subject in the sentence and functioned like an adjective. The term "Movements for civil rights" when placed within a subheading in the article allowed for a broader discussion for all movements for civil rights within the respective country. Why do I need to provide a citation for those instances?
Fourthly, to address the phrase "which should be put back the way they were." First, that would make some of the sentences a false claim. The German student movement was not a civil rights movement. The wikipedia article does not make that claim. A cursory examination of Google Book entries do not appear to make that claim. Secondly, that would create disambiguation issues for sentences if an editor chooses to wikilink the term "civil rights movement." There is no disambiguation page on Wikipedia for the term "civil rights movement."
Lastly, the following search terms entered on wikipedia illuminates the reason why there is no disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement:
First, there is no need for a disambiguation page. The article "Movements for civil rights" is not a disambiguation page. The presence or non-presence of this article is not a factor in the need for a disambiguation page. As stated in a point, the article "Movements for civil rights" ... "It's essentially an expanded-prose list article in form."
Secondly, the following search terms entered on wikipedia illuminates the reason why there is no disambiguation page for the term "civil rights movement:
If I have misunderstood any of your points, then please correct me. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I get called wordy sometimes, but it borders on WP:DE to totally bury a simple RM discussion with a response that's ~23,700 characters, in ~3,500 words. Please see WP:TLDR. I'm surprised anyone else has even commented here, given such a torrent of nitpicking to sludge through (although not surprised they so far mostly support the move proposal). I'm busy with real work right now, but Rjensen (in a separate posts in the #Comments section) provides reliable sources for "civil rights movements" being used in this general way, and or in reference to specific movements that are not the one you favor but which would qualify for inclusion in this article. The stats.grok.se results do not tell us what people search for, only what pages they end up on, so the use of them in the barrage above is a faulty analysis. And, yes, a large proportion of the above über-response does misunderstand many of my points, but I'm not going to duplicate your volume with a point-by-point response to it. Most of the misunderstandings and straw men are self-evident. I'm content letting others !vote without wading through more protracted back-and-forths like the ones you're having you're having with Dicklyon and GregKaye below, using the same proof by verbosity tactic. I've created a #Discussion subsection for any further ranting anyone wants to get into. Most of your huge rant I won't respond to, because it's just a huge string of straw man and red herring fallacies. To just throw a dart and pick two random ones: 1) 'First, there is no need for a disambiguation page. The article "Movements for civil rights" is not a disambiguation page'. I am not arguing for such a DAB page nor is anyone else here, but against it. No one made the argument that this page is a DAB page. So, two straw men back to back. 2) 'to address the phrase "which should be put back the way they were." First, that would make some of the sentences a false claim. The German student movement was not a civil rights movement.' No one made an argument to replace "German student movement" with anything (e.g. "German student civil rights movement"), but rather to revert your changing, without consensus, of the common phrase "civil rights movement" (or its plural) to "movement for civil rights" (or its plural). Patent, obvious straw man. I don't have time to waste on any further deconstruction of this nonsense. Most of what isn't structurally fallacious is simply misapplied and misunderstood partial quotations of policy and guildeine pages out of context and without any understanding of why they relate to other policypages and processes and actual practice. It's as if you're unaware that WP:CONSENSUS policy exists, or that WP:RM#Undiscussed moves exists. Your selective blindness to WP procedure that doesn't agree with you renders much of your "analysis" confused, and pointless noise in the sense of signal-to-noise ratio.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just refactored all of this mess into the Discussion section where it should have been all along. You quote at such length that this transition won't even impede understanding in any way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchumch and Dicklyon discussion[edit]

This discussion was moved here from the Comments section above, where it was originally posted after Dicklyon's !vote.
@Dicklyon: What reliable sources did you use to determine the term "civil rights movements" was the "more common phrasing"? Mitchumch (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not consult sources; I listened to SMcCandlish, who is usually reliable on such things. Are you saying you think maybe the other is as common or more so? Have you checked? Here is some ngram data. Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I did not consult sources"
By not consulting sources, you are violating WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" which states, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Furthermore, subsection "Use commonly recognizable names" states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. There are no citations referring to the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." Please cite sources that make this claim.
  • "I listened to SMcCandlish, who is usually reliable on such things."
Where in Wikipedia does it state that relying upon the reliability of a Wikipedia user is a satisfactory rational to base an article move? I do not see this rational listed in WP:MOVE or "Wikipedia:Moving a page."
  • "Are you saying you think maybe the other is as common or more so?"
I am saying the term "civil rights movements" is not a common name for the content written in the article "Movements for civil rights." WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title," subsection "Use commonly recognizable names" states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. The article "Movements for civil rights" does not rely upon the "prevalence in reliable English-language sources" to demonstrate that the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." Please cite sources that make this claim.
  • "Have you checked?"
Yes. Afterwards, I posted an inquiry on this talk page on 12 October 2013 titled, "Propose name change to article title" seeking sources from the page watchers for this article. No one responded to my inquiry. No one disputed the move of the article title. That was 15 months ago.
This chart only demonstrates the prevalence of the term "civil rights movements" versus "movements for civil rights" in books. It does not demonstrate the use or what is referred to by the terms "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil rights" in those books. No reliable English-language sources, per "Wikipedia:Article titles" in subsection "Deciding on an article title," refers to the term "civil rights movements" as meaning "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." Please cite sources that make this claim.
If I have misunderstood any of your points, then please correct me. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your wall of text does seem to miss the point, even if it does pick apart my stated reasons for supporting the proposed move. Do you have a reason to prefer the current title? Is there some way you can show that even though it is much less common in sources, it more accurately describes the content of the article? I'm not seeing it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: *"Do you have a reason to prefer the current title?"
Yes. Specifically, it does not violate Wikipedia:Article titles policy - "Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." The term "movements for civil rights" is an unambiguous term. "Civil rights movements" is ambiguous with the term "Civil rights movement." The term "civil rights movements" denotes a meaning that is not synonymous with "civil rights movement." The difference between the two terms is 1 character.
It also does not violate Wikipedia:Article titles policy -"Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The term "civil rights movements" is far less common than "civil rights movement" as can be demonstrated thru the Google N-gram viewer here.
Also, the article "Movements for civil rights" has been viewed on average 205 times per day as of March 23, 2015. This article has three terms that serve as redirects to it. Those redirect terms are "Civil rights movements," "Rights movement," and "Civil rights in the United States." The term "Civil rights movements" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Rights movement" contributes an average of 0.4 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. The term "Civil rights in the United States" contributes an average of 6 views per day for 90 days as of March 23, 2015. Of the four terms that directs users and readers to this page, the term "Movements for civil rights" is recognizable. The term "Civil rights movements" is not recognizable.
  • "Is there some way you can show that even though it is much less common in sources, it more accurately describes the content of the article?"
I am unable to find any source that explicitly states the meaning of "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil rights." I challenge you to find an explicit definition for either term. The citations, further reading lists entries, and web site entries in the article don't seem to have an explicit definition in them either. Or worse, do not use the term "civil rights movements" or "movements for civil rights." Users appear to be inferring the meaning of both terms. If that is the case, then the article topic is Original Research or WP:ORIGINALSYN which states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Until there are sources explicitly stating the definition for these terms, I have suspended my judgement on whether either term "accurately describes the content of the article."
The article also has movements that do not appear to be a civil rights movement. Namely the German student movement and May 1968 events in France. I challenge you to find reliable sources that state that they are.
Thank you for responding. Mitchumch (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchumch and GregKaye discussion[edit]

This discussion was moved here from the Comments section above, where it was originally posted after GregKaye's !vote.
  • "Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English."
Where in Wikipedia does it state that "Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English" is a satisfactory rational to base an article move? I do not see this rational listed in WP:MOVE or "Wikipedia:Moving a page."
Instead I found in section "Article title format" of "Wikipedia:Article titles" or "WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or Try to Remember. Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration), although sometimes they are disambiguation pages, as at Organic. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming."
If I have misunderstood any of your point, then please correct me. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchumch sources aren't required;
I am sure that other routes of searches in Google and others will get similar resultsGregKaye 20:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Wikipedia does it say you can ignore reliable English-language sources? Wikipedia policy WP:NC or "Deciding on an article title" states, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Furthermore, subsection "Use commonly recognizable names" states, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.
Your search term is a disambiguation issue. The term "civil rights movements" in this search predominantly refers to the various campaigns that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement in the US. Please state the number of hits that only refers to the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s."
  • "I am sure that other routes of searches in Google and others will get similar results"
Displaying counts for hits does not demonstrate that the term "civil rights movements" means "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s." Please see my response to your point ""civil rights movements" gets "About 16,500 results" in scholar"
If I have misunderstood any of your points, then please correct me. Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 'Where in Wikipedia does it state that "Adjectives before nouns is the standard in clear, concise English" is a satisfactory rational to base an article move? I do not see this rational listed in WP:MOVE or "Wikipedia:Moving a page."'" I think you mean "rationale". Anyway, WP doesn't work this way. RM discussions are WP:CONSENSUS discussions that can weigh whatever factors the participants consider relevant. There is no checklist of considerations that must be considered, nor blacklist of those which cannot. Even if there were, it would absolutely be a valid point that any of a number of guides (probably all of them) to English language style and usage indicate that good writing uses "modifier noun" order whenever practical, vs. "noun preposition modifier"). We rely on such points in many RM discussions, and the WP:MOS mostly consists of points drawn from such sources. The speech of Yoda, to be avoiding we are. As in your much longer attempts at rebuttal above, most of rest of your arguments are of the straw man type. For example, no one has proposed that any source 'only refers to the term "civil rights movements" to mean "a worldwide series of political movements for equality before the law that peaked in the 1960s.", and demanding a source for this is a red herring and a hand wave. Most sources not dealing with the civil rights movement you focus on (African-American, 1950s-60s) will, rather, deal with specific other civil rights movements. The quoted phrase "a worldwide series of political movements...[etc]" is Wikipedia's own summary for the subject of its own article, not an externally published statement about the world. You are trying invalidly to use WP as a reliable source for the definition of "civil rights movements" (or "movements for civil rights"), and confusing the container for its contents, the second such Korzybskian error of "mistaking the map for the territory, the menu for the meaL" that I've caught you in, without even really looking. The WP article is a WP:CONCEPTDAB, an extended list article of topics that qualify under the label we've agreed to file them under. Our internal organization of material is a matter of WP editorial consensus about content presentation for our readership, and is not dependent upon, much less determinative of, what external sources are doing and saying for their own target audiences. Furthermore, throughout these excessively lengthy responses, you're misapplying WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:RS, which apply to article content, as if they constrained talk page discussions. They do not, and posting numerous cranky demands for sources of the obvious is not going actually force anyone to do your home work for you. Getting back to procedural matters: You unilaterally moved the article without consensus, and if I want to I can take it to the main RM page to be speedily reverted back to the original name, no discussion required. Instead, I've done you (well, the article and all it's editors and readers) the courtesy of opening a regular RM discussion to determine what the best name of the RM probably will be. It's unhelpful for you to be excessively combative toward me for this. I'm not going to address any more of your logorrhea, because it's all built on similar house-of-cards false logic. I can easily and more cogently re-refute every line of your attempted refutations in all three of these discussions, but no one's going to read it or care, since even skimming what you've written reveals the misinterpretations and fallacies in it. Arguing over the minutiae of why your interpretation of what we're saying isn't correct is not why I'm on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish and Mitchumch discussion[edit]

This discussion is in response to Mitchumch's !vote in the Comments section, above.
Many titles are only one character different from other titles, and this is permissible (see WP:DIFFPUNCT, etc.) The singular and plural terms don't "denote different things" in any meaningful sense; the plural version denotes the plural, i.e. civil rights movements, just like it says, and the singular redirect refers to a singular subset of that topic, presently (and presumably henceforth) the specific instance we seem to have a consensus about with regard to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMMONNAME. That is, "the cake I baked" (like "civil rights movements"), vs. "some of the cake I baked" (like "civil rights movement" in the singular) are not intrinsically "different things"; the former is a superset of the latter. Next, sources have already been cited just above, and there are many more, using the plural "civil rights movements" in this manner, so there is no original research problem; that's a red herring. Last, we don't need to look around for the "possibility [of] another term - not known by anyone here", as it would not be the COMMONNAME for anything. Somewhere, someone may have referred to them as "political actions for the betterment of humanity" or whatever, but we'd never the title the article that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd that many people are referring to the 'Civil Rights Movement' as lower-case in this discussion, and ask the closer to see my comment in the 'voting' section and assure (and mention in the closing comment) that this move will not be used to try to lower-case the Civil Rights Movement page. Thanks. Randy Kryn 15:47 31 March, 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of civil rights[edit]

Civil rights and civil liberties appear to be closely related terms. Many of the same concepts are linked from the lead sections of each article, to the point where the distinction between each topic is not clear to me. Are these content forks? Each references the United States Bill of Rights as the instrument which protects these rights/liberties.

However, adding the everyday word "movement" causes "civil rights" to take on a much more specific meaning. The civil rights movement is about the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, not the movement to pass the 1789 Bill of Rights. I believe that the naming of the 1950s–60s movement was a choice of emphasis made by the movement's leadership. The women's rights movement, gay rights movement, and Indian rights movement (American Indian Movement) did not so explicitly define themselves as Civil Rights movements. Not until the late 1960s did we see a Black rights movement – actually it was a Black Power movement. The primary topic for Civil Rights Movement is African-American Civil Rights Movement, and thus, to have an undisambiguated article titled "civil rights movements" implies that the article is about African-American civil rights movements – especially since we have multiple articles on these movements which span several generations and over a century on the calendar. See Civil Rights Act for all the legislation which resulted from these movements which lasted for over 100 years.

This article clearly uses the term "civil rights" in the broader sense of the "Bill of Rights". I think there may indeed be some synthesis here, but sources such as this show that there are sources who have compared different movements. However, as their abstract says, "Due to the lack of recognition for the solidarity between movements for civil rights, little formal scholarship acknowledging the relationship between African Americans and Nationalists in Northern Ireland exists." We have an awkwardly constructed article here. Perhaps it's fitting that it has an "awkward sounding" title, and improving the organization and sourcing of the content might just point the way towards finding a less awkward title. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016[edit]

Under gender equality section, final sentence, sexuality is listed twice. Remove one instance. Formatting of the page is inconsistent. Most movements are listed by nationality (civil rights in northern Ireland, Canada's quiet movement, etc.) then it lists LGBT movements, and then goes back to listing by nation. This can be remedied by reorganizing the page by topic then by nation (race rights [in northern Ireland, in Canada, in Russia,] LGBT rights [in germany, USA, Austrailia, New Zealand] ) This would also allow the inclusion of other issues beyond race and LGBT. The current article appears to imply that these are the only areas where civil rights are at issue. Nostagar (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: The redundancy has been cut; however, with all due respect you will want to seek consensus (before you use the {{Edit semi-protected}} template) for the rest.  Stick to sources! Paine  02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current and future movements for more equality[edit]

There are currently some remaining groups of people that are not given equal rights under the law - for example, people under 18, unauthorized migrants, and the homeless. The article should focus on future liberation or potential liberation movements, not simply past ones, or else there should be another article called "Groups Not Having Equal Rights" or the like. 129.2.106.82 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Nightvid[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017[edit]

Hi I would like to make an addition to the introduction of this page. After the following: "The process has been long and tenuous in many countries, and many of these movements did not, or have yet to, fully achieve their goals, although the efforts of these movements have led to improvements in the legal rights of some previously oppressed groups of people, in some places", I would like to include information on the philosophical origin of Civil Right Movements. My edit is as a follows: " Many civil rights movements and their ideologies have stemmed from philosophical thought such as the mid-17th Century philosopher John Locke and his theory of a Lockean Right. Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society. As a result of his writings[1], society began to question the intentions of their government and demanded a greater say in their entitlements. Such thought has hence became the backbone for many of the civil rights movements occurring today. JustChillOut (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JustChillOut:  Not done I don't believe the text "Locke inspired many to rebel against the government in order to obtain "natural rights" for all, regardless of their station in society" is sourced. You've provided a source to Locke's writing itself but does that confirm the claim that he was a major inspiration for these sorts of rebellions? Without a source, we won't really be able to add this since it's pretty contentious. See WP:RS and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIMARY. CityOfSilver 20:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Social Contract Theory, John Locke". Internet Enclyopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 18 November 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2018[edit]

Change Chicano to Chicanx 131.252.140.111 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Why? DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover and collaboration between the US civil rights movement and the anti-colonial movement in Africa[edit]

This is a particularly interesting topic that has not been included in this article. It certainly warrants attention and discussion. Major figures of the civil rights movement in the US including Martin Luther King, Harry Belafonte, Jackie Robinson and Malcolm X were directly involved in anti-colonial movements in Africa. Liberation leaders in Africa such as Tom Mboya and Pio Gama Pinto from Kenya were in active correspondence with these figures. Tom Mboya gave a speech at a civil rights rally in DC, sharing the podium with Martin Luther King[1]. Their collaboration bore fruits for example in the Kennedy Airlift scholarship program and the first Kenyan constitution. Thurgood Marshall was instrumental in drafting the first constitution. Tom Shachtman discusses this in his book Airlift to America. How Barack Obama, Sr., John F. Kennedy, Tom Mboya, and 800 East African Students Changed Their World and Ours. Barack Obama's father got his scholarship to study in the Hawaii because of these collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, mainstream historians discuss these two pivotal movements in the 1950s-60s as though they were unrelated. The writings and speeches of these key figures suggest otherwise. Surely this is worth inclusion. Cheers!Lilac breasted roller (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic. Take a look at Krenn, Michael L., ed. The African American Voice in US Foreign Policy Since World War II (1999); Ledwidge, Mark. Race and US foreign policy: The African-American foreign affairs network (Routledge, 2011); Grant, Nicholas. Winning Our Freedoms Together: African Americans and Apartheid, 1945–1960 (U North Carolina Press 2017).. Also Vinson, Robert Trent. "Up from Slavery and Down with Apartheid! African Americans and Black South Africans against the Global Color Line." Journal of American Studies 52.2 (2018): 297 online here Rjensen (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tom Mboya & Dr. Martin L King at a Civil Rights Rally in DC Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0B60s5NiJw

Write a short note on civil rights movement[edit]

pls 2409:40E6:24:C2ED:D829:C3E0:F8DF:ED46 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_rights_movements&oldid=1221540864"