Template talk:Civil rights movement

Untitled

[edit]

This is a great template. I have a few suggestions/questions. First, why are some organizations shown by initials and some by their full names? Second, should we consider some criteria for including activists? I just added some important leaders who were missing (Farmer, Wilkins, Young). I'm no expert, but I'm very familiar with the civil rights movement, and some of the names were completely unfamiliar to me (Adams, Devine, Simkins). I'm not saying that they're not important activists, but I wonder whether the template should be limited to people with national stature? Anyway, as I wrote, I think it's a great template. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greensboro sit-ins (and the others)

[edit]

The Greensboro sit-ins are conspicuously missing from this timeline. Does anyone else agree that it should be included? Actually, the lunch counter sit-ins should be represented, but the only article I found was the Greensboro one. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurgood Marshall

[edit]

Thurgood Marshall (as a lawyer) is also missing from the template, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeframe

[edit]

Observation: The template mostly focuses on the mid 20th century timeframe though the title just says Civil Rights Movement. The timeline article that is linked does cover the whole movement but that is the only thing that does. IMHO, that needs to be rethought a little. In other words, either the title needs to in some way say that it is restricting itself to the mid 20th century (in which case many articles that use this template need to be changed), or else the template contents need to be rewritten to cover the whole spectrum (e.g. Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, etc.). Obviously the latter would mean removing some items that are there now and adding a number of others.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good point. How about a rename to "1950s and '60s African-American Civil Rights Movement" or "African-American Civil Rights Movement, 1940-1969" or some such year combination. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]
  • Clearly there are scores of notable Civil Rights Movement figures which could be added to this template, but I'm not sure how expansive we want to make it. For the "notable events" section its easy to limit the focus to the biggest events and link from the heading to the Timeline of the African American Civil Rights Movement. Is there a parallel way to limit the individuals to a smaller group of key figures and generate an index page or more comprehensive list? (Category:African Americans' rights activists comes to mind, but then I note that most of the individuals listed in the template are also associated with the various organizations listed separately. Would it be better to nest their names under templates for each major organization? Just some thoughts. --Dystopos (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has developed into a full and, imho, very functional overview and research guide of important pages regarding the movement. A gathering place of almost all of the wiki articles on this major period of American and world history, this template may be unique among research tools. Dividing it into smaller templates is an interesting idea, but may dilute the research value of the page as it stands now. It also is useful to put on user pages to keep track of "recent changes" in the articles. And it's also fun to look at, and realize the individual efforts that so many people and organizations gave to the cause that they believed in and worked towards. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing from template

[edit]

Amelia Boynton Robinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.168.85 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lyon: Quoting Wikipedia, "After being accepted as the photographer for Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Lyon was present at almost all of the major historical events during the Civil Rights Movement... he published his first photographs working for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. His pictures appeared in The Movement, a documentary book about the Civil Rights Movement in the southern region of the United States."

For more detail, see Danny Lyon#Involvement in the Civil_Rights_Movement, or his own book:

Memories of the Southern Civil Rights Movement. The Lyndhurst Series on the South. Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University; University of North Carolina, 1992. ISBN 9780807820544. Edited by Alex Harris.

(Reprinted as Memories of the Southern Civil Rights Movement. Santa Fe, NM: Twin Palms, 2010. ISBN 9781931885881.) Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deacons for Defense and Justice

[edit]

I think this, or another, self-defence group would be a good addition to the template (looking at the names, none strike me as being 'armed', but I don't know much :P, just checked the Movement's article, it talks about the SNCC starting to advocate self-defence, but they quickly dissolved). Also, as has been noted there are lots of articles listed here... which leads me to think choosing the main names for here, and creating a "list of Activists/Groups in the African-American Civil Rights Movement" might be interesting. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space for opposition

[edit]

@Randy Kryn: If I find individuals, groups, and actions undertaken by opponents of civil rights workers, then where do I place them in this template? Examples:

Here are a few more individuals to add as proponents:

Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mitchumch:. I've thought of adding an opposition section, as many of the opponents are well known and were actually essential to the success of the movement (Bull Connor, Jim Clark, George Wallace, etc.). If we do, it seems now or soon would be the time to do a fold-in multi-sectional of the template, maybe into three or four segments with the top segment open (the first two sections of the template could be included). Dorothy Counts doesn't seem to really fit the movement, at least as a major included name, but the other two, McKissick and Moore, for sure, thanks for finding them. Please do the honors. I'll add Moore's spur-of-the-moment action, Royal Ice Cream Sit-in, but only because they made a court case out of it and played it all the way to the Supreme Court before losing (the Court didn't take the appeal). Nice work. Randy Kryn 9:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This template is already getting pretty large and unwieldy. Adding opponents to the scope would significantly increase the size of the template and dilute its focus, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another section

[edit]

This is already a really long template, but I'd like to suggest another section heading called "Notable locations". There really are hundreds of important places, like Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church (Selma, Alabama), Holt Street Baptist Church, Money, Mississippi, and the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Thanks for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Chapel and the bridge used to be on the template, someone must have removed them late last year. Good catch. They could go in as subsections of the Selma link (edit:put them in 'Related', except for the Money, Miss. entry which seems too broad for this template).Randy Kryn 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle the navbox after the discussion

[edit]

Further to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 17#Template:African-American Civil Rights Movement, it seems there was definitely consensus to trim the navbox (per Sandstein, myself, Mangokeylime, Kierzek and Izno) and some support for splitting this (per myself and Izno). How do you think we should handle this? I'd suggest splitting out the Activists and activists groups into their own navbox in order to reduce this one to manageable size. As I mentioned at the deletion discussion, I think a lot of the "Influences" section could be culled, as spurious and tangential, and I think the "Historians" section should probably be excised too, for the same reasons. I don't think that a navbox with collapsible groups is the right way forward. It isn't helpful to our readers, as this involves more clicking to find the articles required, and difficult to find the section of the navbox you are currently navigating. Also, adding redlinks in doesn't help reduce the size of the navbox (or aid navigation in any way), so I would kindly request that Mitchumch would have a read of WP:WTAF and stop adding them. Without articles, we cannot determine whether these songs are notable or even related to the topic. The exception for redlinks in navboxes is usually reserved where the reader is expecting complete sets of data. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a quick note now and more later. The folded template works very well, and is all-inclusive without being too large (the activist section is the only one which might need a trim, and that's what we should be discussing). Robsinden, we've had our go-arounds, and I know you like very small templates, but maybe you can please consider letting the editors who work on this project talk it out for awhile and have a go at it. By saying of the song "Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around" that "Without articles, we cannot determine whether these songs are notable or even related to the topic. The exception for redlinks in navboxes is usually reserved where the reader is expecting complete sets of data" shows that you may be a bit unaware of the historical map of the Civil Rights Movement, where that song is prominent. More later, and let's get some pings out to others who work on this project. Randy Kryn 10:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The collapsible navbox isn't any smaller (as a matter of fact, it's actually larger), so this doesn't address the concerns over size nor the consensus to trim. And there is still no case to make exemption for redlinks in this instance, as songs which may or may not be connected to the Civil Rights Movement do not constitute a defined set. In fact, a couple of the songs which are linked, specifically "Kumbaya", are definitely pushing the limit for inclusion. I also think that the link to Protest songs in the United States is probably a stretch too far and one of the links that should be cut, as the article is far more wide-reaching than the specifics of the topic here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The folded template is much smaller, and has a good shape too. Good point about the protest song link, that's one that should go and also shows we need an article on 'Songs of the Civil Rights Movement'. Randy Kryn 11:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC
Just because it's collapsed, doesn't mean it's smaller. But yes, a Songs of the Civil Rights Movement article would be a good idea (as long as people don't start trying to add every song that gets a mention to this template!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every song mentioned, including "Kumbaya", is associated with, and was strategically used by, the main participants of the CRM. But even though most of the songs already have an article another CRM-specific page would be useful, and could be very interesting. Randy Kryn 11:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the song is still only tangentially related to the topic, whereas a Songs of the Civil Rights Movement article would be directly related to the topic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace inauguration

[edit]

Randy Kryn Why remove the wikilink? It was a key event of the CRM in 1963. Mitchumch (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it was a governor's inauguration address saying what he had to say to keep his citizens happy, which has nothing to do with the CRMovement. It had no effect on it, as segregation was already in place and would have gone on whether or not Wallace talked about it. Unrelated to the strategies and tactics of the era. Why do you think it was important in the context of the subject? Randy Kryn 01:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Because the inauguration is routinely covered in reliable sources that cover the CRM. Especially, for works that cover the CRM in Alabama or Wallace as a presidential contender. Mitchumch (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources trump logic (or Trump will trump logic). I still don't see the reasoning of including it, it'd be like adding a speech by King George on the Declaration of Independence template. It wasn't a movement action and literally had no effect on it or its strategy. It was a political address by someone not in the movement. But...sources. Still makes no sense, but let's put it back, unless someone else wants to comment and remove it again, maybe chronologically this time. Randy Kryn 02:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back, chronologically, upper-cased the first word, and moved the "Stand in the Schoolhouse door" page into it as a sub-section. They fit well together as a unit. Feels and looks good that way, gives a dynamism to its spot in the template (the upper-case helped). Seem okay? Randy Kryn 02:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Civil_rights_movement&oldid=1229168878"