Talk:Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please follow the normal Wikipedia convention of adding all new discussions at the end of the list.

Contents

[edit] Initial Work

The information in this timeline is entirely from existing Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, many significant dates are missing. I could not find articles on Executive Order 11264, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988, or the June 23, 2003 Supreme Court decision in the University of Michigan Law School case. Simesa 22:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- I found the 2003 case in a Wikipedia page. Simesa 23:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
-- Created a stub for Executive Order 11246 and added it to 1965. Simesa 00:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category Monopolization

Civil rights is the history of all discriminated classes - the monopolization of the term for one class at the exclusion of others is itself discriminatory.

This is the exclusive History of a the struggle of persons identified by the NAACP as "Persons of Color" for equal protection under the law.

The Civil Rights Movement recognizes the coincidence of various groups to overcome systemic discrimination which was initiated by simultaneous efforts of Africans and Women to attain sufrage and which accelerated from 1886 - slowed during the KKK years from 1889 to 1918, picked up momentum during the wars because of federal integration of troops, but made a decisive turn when the Democratic party split with the "Dixiecrats" and choose to embrace the idea that equality in the workplace should be mandated at the federal level in (1955?) The resulting victory of the democrats (JFK) coincided with the imprisonment of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement accelerated to include:

including: 1. Indiginuous Peoples - who deserve their own labels - ie Navaho. 2. Persons of Sub-saharan African Descent. Not to be confused with those of Arab Descent. 3. Women - specifically white women seeking suffrage, Minority women were doubly disadvantaged, but it must be remembers that the champions of womens suffrage specifically disowned any interest in negro suffrage, and so by extension the suffrage of black women was considered distinct from womens suffrage. 4. Jews and Catholics - NC and probably other states prevented Jews and Catholics from participating in public life. 5. Handicapped and Mentally challenged - once treated worse than criminals, those with mental difficiencies were recognized as people - "One flew over the cukoo's nest" represents the period of transformation. 6. Families with Children - were (are) discriminated against in housing until federal laws passed. 7. Minority sexual orientations - Oscar Wilde was imprisoned to the point of insanity before civil rights were recognized. Homosexuals continue to be targeted by multi-bigots: generally those who abhor Jews, Blacks, Gays, and Women in positions of authority, with broad - biblically-based hatred - often with tacit approval from their communities. Mathew Hale being a recent example. David Duke another. 8. The right of the homeless to register to vote without a fixed address. 9. Nonsmokers right to healthy air. 10. Atheists right to freedom of (from) the use of tax money to establish religion.


Civil rights increased until the presidency of George W. Bush - who kicked off his campaign in the bastion of bigotry - bob jones university - which condemns Catholics and prohibits "blacks" from dating "Whites" (leaving asians, geogians, arabs, portugese, hispanic, Indians from either continent, chechnians, and other non-whie-non-blacks to "choose" one "race" or the other), and has marked his Presidency with reduced equality for homosexuals first, then race based interment, racial profiling, and promoting the use of tax money to promote (some) religions. In fairness, Bush has promoted minorities to higher posts that previous Presidents but has insisted on unquestioning loyalty - raising the question that he favors "Uncle Toms", or minorities who are willing to subjugate the principles of equality and participate in the repetition of historic prejudices (such as the japanese internments being revisited in gitmo) in exchange for high profile positions. Benjamin Gatti 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Changed Years 1963, 1964 and 1965, as Follows, and Converted In-text External Links to Footnotes per Wikipedia Guidelines :

  • 1963 (there were four in-text external links, [1] to [4]) :
    • June 11 - This second June 11 item, JFK's historic civil rights speech, had his Bill of June 19 mixed in, confusing. Clarified it. Substituted JFK library's transcript as the source reference, and moved original source reference [1], about August 28 item, to there. And original source [2] was actually MLK's Aug 28 speech, so moved it there as well.
    • June 12 - Added a source (reference) for Medgar Evers and a little of its content.
    • June 19 - Clarified.
    • August 28 - (Moved original [1] and [2] here.)
    • November 22 -Added content.
  • 1964:
    • Corrected two apparent typos in dates: July 3->July 2, and added a source; October 14->December 10 and added a source.
  • 1965 (there was one in-text external link, [5]) :
    • Corrected apparent typo in date, March 16->15, per this item's own source.

For7thGen 21:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Rights or civil rights abuses?

First off, I agree w/ Gatti up there about the monopolization. The word "Native American" (or American Indian, Indigenous People, First Nations, etc.) wasn't even on there until I added it (and I hope to add more). Of course, this is remedied through contribution. But what I really want to ask is, do we talk about civil rights, or abuses of civil rights? Advancements only? Or setbacks as well? I'm sure the assassination of Medgar Evers is up there. Is that to mean we should mark every Indian massacre as well? What about long-ranging phenomena, such as lynchings and Sundown towns? Should we mark the beginning of each decade (eg. 1890-1900: 246 lynchings)? Just wondering what people think about this...--Rockero 02:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that lynching and sundown town belong in the article, at least in See Also. The number of lynchings belongs in the lynching article, although notable lynchings might have a link - I'll look over the Timeline. I would leave out the Indian massacres but include Wounded Knee Standoff (which has no article of its own). Simesa 19:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts of automatic numbering

I have no way of knowing what the user would choose, who made the very good addition for Sep 15 1963 about the Spike Lee documentary "Four Little Girls". Would they (he or she) choose to add a placeholder footnote as the 6th item in the numbered list of footnotes, along with their automatically numbered embedded HTML link, to avoid conflict with the automatically numbered footnotes in this article? Or would they choose to use the non-numbered embedded HTML link which I have converted their link to? I myself don't care which, but they should have done one or the other. What they did instead, presumably unintentionally because of simply not knowing about conflicts of automatic numbering, fouled up all the footnotes (6, 7 and 8) that followed their embedded HTML link which was automatically numbered [6]. For any users who need further explanation or discussion, please see Wikipedia:Cite sources#Footnote notation and Wikipedia:Cite sources#Embedded HTML links. For7thGen 18:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That was my fault - I didn't spot the conflict. Good catch! Simesa 22:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Timelines

First, I want to propose a merger between three seperate, but overlaping articles. If a merger with the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement isn't desired, than perhaps seperate article pages for the Key events sections of the American Civil Rights Movement (1896-1954) and American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) articles will be desired due to the gross length of those articles.

Lastly, a review of the discussion page on the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement article seems to show a consesus on placing notable events on groups beyond African Americans on this page. Yet, a review of the actual article doesn't reflect any effort towards that direction. If that direction is retained, then perhaps a name change is order.

The term "Civil Rights Movement" seems to be utilized in reference or secondary works as solely refering to African Americans. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience, any American history textbook -- highschool or college texts, and any wikiarticle dedicated towards the other movements. Including:

  • antiwar movement -"The protests gained momentum from American Civil Rights Movement that had organized to oppose segregation laws, which had laid a foundation of theory and infrastructure on which the anti-war movement grew." (9th paragraph down)
  • student movement - "Students movements in the US also became a part of the movement for academic freedom in the universities and the budding American Civil Rights Movement." (3rd paragraph down)
  • women’s movement - "Feminism of the second wave in the 1960's focused more on lifestyle and economic issues; "The personal is the political" became a catchphrase. Second wave feminism emerged with battles on three fronts. Many came from within the New Left, seeking to expand the agenda of civil rights and campus to the status of women, while becoming increasing vocal on the mistreatment of women within the movement". (1st paragraph)
  • gay rights movement - "In the sixties, the civil rights, black power, anti-war, and feminist movements influenced some LGBT activists to become more militant and radical (Matzner 2004)." (3rd paragraph down)
  • disability rights movement - "The disability rights movement began in the 1970s, encouraged by the examples of the African-American civil rights and women’s rights movements, which began in the late 1960s." (sole paragraph)
  • “1960's” - "[A]lthough some of the most dramatic events of the American civil rights movement occurred in the early 1960s, the movement had already began in earnest during the 1950s. On the other hand, the rise of feminism and gay rights began only in the very late 1960s and did not fully flower until the Seventies. However, the "Sixties" has become synonymous with all the new, exciting, radical, subversive and/or dangerous (according to one's viewpoint) events and trends of the period." (1st paragraph)

That term "sixties" seems to be a catch all for all the tumultuous events that occured during that period in the U.S. and abroad -- constructive or destructive.

This is not a disagreement on the nature of the other movements. To avoid the confusion that appears on this discussion page with the aims of those writing an article on the Civil Rights Movement or mentioning the Civil Rights Movement on any page, I only want to adhere to what is the established terminology in scholarly studies, reference works, and on wikipedia. - Mitchumch 12:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The other two "core" articles are already too long - merging might only make them longer. We probably should have highlighted this article in their text (as opposed to in See also) in the first place. Simesa 01:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The "Key Events" section from the article that chronicles the years 1955-1968 currently exceeds the 32KB article size limit by 11KBs. The Civil Rights Movement article it is embedded in exceeds the 32KB size limit by another 32KB -- that is without the "Key Events" section. Another related concern is the awkward presence of such an enormous timeline preceeding the body of text in the Civil Rights Movement article. This is also a growing problem in the Civil Rights Movement article that chronicles the years 1896-1954.
From those three issues, I think it is inevitable that the "Key Events" sections will be seperated into their own article. Once that happens, a merger between it and the Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement will follow.
As for the concern about the length of the proposed merger of articles. I think the timeline will need to be divided into two or more articles. Perhaps the breaks in the article could hinge on major developments in the Civil Rights Movement -- emergence of Dr.King after the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956, passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the emergence of the Black Power Movement in 1966. I'm open to suggestions. - Mitchumch 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure how to make comments on this so I am just editing the page to add my opinion. I am studying the American Civil Rights movement 1865-1980 at school in the UK and I believe it would be most helpful if the timeline was merged with both key events pages - the more detailed the timeline the better, as I just copied a large chunk (1865-1915) out onto paper only to find that there was a great deal more in the key events pages - a merger would have helped avoid this and provide a more synoptic view! Thanks, Matt Smith Madmatt52 09:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Citation of bulleted dates

First, though, we have to ask - is this information from a copyrighted source? Simesa 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, because the "Key Events" sections has grown naturally from the contributions of numerous editors. Could you elaborate on your concern and question -- I'm not sure that I fully understand your thoughts on this matter. - Mitchumch 10:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For the sources I used to produce the introduction in the American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), see:
  • Abraham, Henry J. and Barbara A. Perry. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States. 8th ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003. pgs. 367-464 ISBN 0700612629
  • Kousser, J. Morgan. The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. ISBN 0300016964
  • Lowery, Charles D. and John F. Marszalek, ed. Encyclopedia of African-American Civil Rights: From Emancipation to the Present. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. ISBN 0313250111
  • Sullivan, Patricia. "Civil Rights Movement." Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. New York: Basic Civitas Books, 1999. ISBN 0465000711
An additional note on the citation of various dates in the timeline or key events sections in articles related to the Civil Rights Movement:
Outside of the grammatical or spelling edits that I've made in the different articles, I've contributed dates for the urban riots. For the source of information that I used for the urban riots between 1964-1968, see:
  • Brown, Richard M. "Black-White Violence, 1663-1970: Slave Insurgencies; Riots; Lynchings. appendix 4. Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of Ameican Violence and Vigilantism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. (This work is a noted synthesis of secondary studies. The literature on riots are drawn from six studies that are cited at the end of the table on racial violence.)
I think adding citations to each event bulleted would definitely raise the bar on the quality of the article and avoid plagiarism, but it would take time to fact check each event without a citation. If that it is the first step in merging the articles, I will definitely need to enlist help. - Mitchumch 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In the current Timeline, of the first 40 bulleted items I checked (all through 1949, with 2 duplicates) all were wikilinks and 35 of those had references and/or adequate External Links. It is not too much to expect that each bulleted item have a citation, if only to a footnote. Simesa 07:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging-in of 1954-1968 info

The 1954-1968 timeline info that user Mitchumch placed in American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968) has been merged into Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement as "Unsourced/Unchecked Info". This was done because one line stated that Bobby Bland graduated from the University of Virginia's Engineering school - which was patently false. Also, there may be copyright violation concerns. I (or, hopefully other editors as well) will check each line and move the info up into the normal text as time permits. I do appreciate Mitcumch's hard work, and want to see it installed properly. Simesa 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I'll remove merge into and add a fact checking link.Avraham 15:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more merging

If someone can merge in the info from that would be great. You can find it at the subpage here: Talk:Timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement/Merge in

[edit] verify

The info that needs verification is the 1954-1968 timeline info. Most of it is labeled. See above (merging of 1954-1968 info)

[edit] Birth of A Nation(Of Islam)

Does anyone think that it may be a little inappropriate to incorporate the NOI into this timeline of civil rights?

I mean, yeah, they WERE in the Civil Rights Movment, but there a religious/black nationalist group first and foremost. The klan has donated to childrens charitys, but that dosn't subtract from the fact that it's a terroist organization. Should THEY then be placed right next to the March of Dimes?

Besides, the amount of members is a personal acomplishment, not geared towards the Civil Rights Movement in any way. -69.250.130.215

[edit] Gutting of Timeline

Removal of 284 years of struggle is grossly inappropriate and unencyclopedic. Perhaps the Holocaust didn't happen either? Simesa 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This change - cleanly removing absolutely everything outside the '60s (including not only timeline material but also header and trailer material) - looks to me more like an edit error of some kind than a deliberate removal of the information. Remember WP:AGF. Restoring the material, as you've done, is completely appropriate... just don't assume that the original deletion was intentional. (Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity :-)

Jordan Brown 10:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of the "Unsourced Material"

This material appears to come from [1], which is a copyrighted website. I will try to reduce the unsourced material as time permits. Simesa 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions of December 5-6

It gives me no pleasure to remove info from Wikipedia, but I believe it to have been lifted wholesale from [2] and I simply don't have time now to find alternative sources for each item. The best thing to do is to keep what we can support, prominently reference the website, and come back later with references for more info. Simesa 06:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan's Affirmative Action Ban

[3] - need a non-Yahoo reference. Simesa 06:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Ward Connerly was involved. Simesa 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classification and Timeline Question

It should be clear that in the 1600's and 1700's that there were a negligible number of Africans who could rightly be called "African Americans." Moreover, as enslaved Africans, is it not difficult to argue that their struggle constituted a "civil rights struggle"? After all, this presupposes that these Africans prized citizenship above freedom. That is a tough position to establish until you get well into the 1850's. The Civil Rights Movement is part of a larger international struggle and does not properly date from the 1600's. To suggest that it does may be to overlook either the meaning of "civil" or the meaning of "African" vs. "African American."

How can this be resolved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Temple3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).--Temple3 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimeline_of_the_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_50f7.html"