Jump to content

Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dudebob5420.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: LLUCZEK.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political Repercussions

[edit]

"The South, which had started to vote increasingly Republican beginning in the 1930s"

Not true, FDR won Southern states overwhelmingly in Alabama he won 84.7% of the vote. The trend started in the 1920s but then there was a reversal in the 30s as it became moved more democratic again.

Should be changed to:

The South, which had begun to shift towards the Republicans in the 1920s

thoughts?---- A;ex 28/10/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy.on.laptop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaneous newspaper article(s)

[edit]

Text of President’s Civil Rights Talk: ‘This Is A Proud Triumph’, The Miami News, Washington (AP), Friday, July 3, 1964, 3A:

“ . . . This is why the Civil Rights Act relies first on voluntary compliance, then on the efforts of states and local communities to secure the rights of citizens. It provides for the national authority to step in only when others cannot or will not do the job. . . ”

Busing

[edit]

Why do we have an entire section sourced to a David Frum book whose purpose is to argue that civil rights supporters were dastardly liars who tricked waverers into voting for a bill that allowed busing? john k (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted

[edit]

[moved here from my talk page] "Accepted" by whom? Anyone can say anything he likes about a non-existent landmark. It suits you to use a passive without an agent. America is wallowing in post-war guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.33 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search of "landmark civil rights act" (with the quotes). You will find that "landmark" is very frequently associated with "civil rights act." Justify your attempt to eliminate the term "landmark" -- blaming it on "post war guilt" is, at best, bizarre. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Shoreman is correct. Also, for example, look at the title of the first cited book: Wright, Susan (2005), "The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscrimination Legislation". Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title VII of the Act.

[edit]

Found a typo in one of my edit summaries -- obviously it is Title VII, not Title VI, of the Act that prohibits employment discrimination (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin). Famspear (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken person

[edit]

There is a mistake in the phrase "President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party." it was actually President Kennedy. The following phrases make it clear: Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."

Both President Kennedy and later President Johnson expressed the same fear that supporting civil rights would alienate white voters in the South and turn them against the Democratic Party. There are many quotes in many sources attesting to this. For example, in NY Times artice of July 2nd 1989: "Hours after he signed it [the Civil Rights Act], the President said to his press aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." Brucehartford (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

>There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”.[47] Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”.[47] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.

I don't think this is NPOV. The guy's argument is a canonical libertarian line of argument, and representing it in the surrounding text as having an underlying ideological motivation other than that stated-- it just seems sketchy to me. & there's other stuff like this 2601:C:A200:7F8:644D:63B3:7245:882 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's nothing at all neutral about the statement that he "used legal means to attempt to prevent full equality for African-Americans." That wasn't his argument. His argument was that the federal government was barging into private transactions and that no one has a right to stay at his hotel. That's just Wikipedia bias for you.184.80.4.2 (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

[edit]

The blanket statement that the Civil Rights Act "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" is not entirely true. There are various contexts in which discrimination on these bases is legal. For instance, in casting parts for performance arts. Also, religious institutions have some leeway to legally discriminate in hiring based on religion. Et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.230.113 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does NOT enforce protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if employers have fewer than 15 employees.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Coverage of Business/Private Employers". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). USA.gov. Retrieved 30 August 2019.

By Party and Region

[edit]

I made a small change to the first paragraph, as while the 11 states that made up the Southern Caucus also a century before also made up the CSA, it is to the Southern Caucus that historians cite in opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and not the CSA. Dubyavee (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my edit, which was hasty. I do think this section is very badly handled regarding region.Dubyavee (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is included to try to exculpate Democrats lack of voting for the Act. A number of the 'eleven states' weren't states at the time of the Confederacy. And, in any event, it doesn't change the voting proportions, though the author would like that. What that person wants to say is that 'Southern Republicans' are 'more racist' than 'Southern Democrats'. The definition was intentionally skewed and has nothing to do with overall voting trends between parties and there should have been more granularity as to said votes. Phil Sheo (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it the term Southern and Northern are not congruent to one another here. When defining Southern there is mention of the Confederate states but when using Northern the definition is every other state. When the Confederate states existed there was not yet a fully formed United States of America. Many states we now know of in 2022 existed as Territories during The Confederacy yet the votes in these states is wrapped up in Northern. Maybe the author is trying to convey Civil Rights act of 1964 has some relation to The Confederate states but it is not clear what that relation is. History is much more complicated than just drawing a line. What is the implication of special importance of the Southern states here? If it has to do with race the history of this is quite clouded. The Missouri Compromise and the Mason Dixon line come way before the Confederate states. If I take the text at face value the term Confederate states used here is to imply some meaning in 1964 terms. There is a lot of time between 1865 (time of the Confederate States) and 1964. The Civil Rights act was about ending Segregation, yes? Would this article be better served by detailing the list of votes by the states that had segregation vs the ones that did not? It seems some other view is mixed up in this that I can not decipher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.116.123.180 (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MLK and Malcolm X

[edit]

There is a photo on the page of the two Civil Rights leaders meeting and it says that this is the only time they met … I am pretty sure they debated on television at least once. So I worry that the caption is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.236.44 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "debate" seems to not actually be between the two men but footage from two different conversations made to look like a debate. My fault. 67.167.236.44 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Jimmy Quillen

[edit]

Equality Act

[edit]

The Equality Act should be mentioned in the Amendments section, since it is a proposed amendment to CRA '64 and readers may come here looking for it if they don't know the name of the bill.   Pariah24 ┃ ☏   01:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.” just the 15th Amendment?

[edit]

Would the 1964 Civil Rights Act not also invoke the 19th Amendment? Sion8 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be added?

[edit]

from history, Sen (SC) Strom Thurmond gave the longest filibuster for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, spanning little over 24 hours. In the article, this can be highlighted to show the immense opposition to Civil Rights Acts in American history. Thurmond was mentioned by name in the article, so this blurb of information would add to content. LLUCZEK (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not here, because that was in relation to the 1957 Act, not the 1964 Act and the opposition to the 1964 Act is covered herein. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name sof the Democratic Senators who stood against the bill should be listed. If focus is going to be in naming the lone Republican who stood against the bill and not name all the Democrats who stood against it then it shows an undeniable bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filibuster: 54, 60 or 83 days?

[edit]

The Senate Historical Office and The Center for Legislative Archives both say that the filibuster lasted 60 days, not 54, as stated. This may be accounted for by the Senate having sessions on Saturdays, which the 54-day count may have missed.

However, in Political repercussions it says that there was an 83-day filibuster, for which I appear to be unable to find a source.

== Peter NYC (talk) 08:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senate vote map

[edit]

About the back and forth regarding the two images used to map the senate votes, I would like to point out a few things. To address the point that the svg (with green, yellow, and red) may confuse readers with the partisan color of red, that is why there is a legend directly below the image. Additionally, the jpg is factually inaccurate as both senators from Tennessee voted nay. Please do not use it. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bias in color for those that quickly look at an image. This is the problem with misleading colors. Here is the map that was originally there. If you did not read anything it would be misleading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_rights_act_map.png
I have updated the map. Heimlich2 (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bias with the colors. See red and blue states. You are the one making the assumption that red means Republican when Mad Mismagius noted there's a key directly below the map. Quit changing it. – The Grid (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is bias when you are coloring the southern states red. Southern states were blue in 1964. A map that uses red to color the southern states gives the appearance of Republican control when in 1964 it was the Democrat party who controlled those states. Today's reader recognizes red and blue to denote political parties. Using red or blue would be confusing to the reader. Why would you want to do that? Heimlich2 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it so important to have a map with red or blue states which can knowingly be used to bias a view point important? Isn't the goal here to provide accurate information? I'll gladly create a new map for you if that is the problem just tell me the colors without red or blue. Heimlich2 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a map legend that explains which each color represents. The map uses the colors red, yellow, and green: green for 2 yes and red for 2 no. – The Grid (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand. The problem is that some people will not read it. How many people actually ready the whole wikipedia page? How many people will pick up a book in a library and read the whole thing before just scanning it? The issue is that for the people that do not fully read something using colors that inaccurately portray something gives the wrong idea. The whole idea behind Wikipedia is to be able to change the content as times change. Today, politics is represented with two colors. I have seen many times is media where these colors are uses to misrepresent something. There are lawsuits that take place because of it. Heimlich2 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original map I saw on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_rights_act_map.png
This content is on Wikipedia. Do you see how this person sought to bias the reader? Do you see how it is wrong? Why not stay away from blue and red entirely when speaking politically if you know it can be used to bias people? Heimlich2 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So even if I don't read this article, there's a bias with the colors presented? Do you even see the content that's attached to the map around it? The percentages applied for Northern and Southern Democrats along with Northern and Southern Republicans? – The Grid (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the map that has the red, green, yellow in it. The problem is how to keep it from being misinterpreted. How many people do you think there are that open a wikipedia page and scan through the pictures and graph but do not read them? How about those people who have red/green color blindness? The Red/Green/Yellow map would fail them. Heimlich2 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your version of the map would too - there's the guidelines in MOS:COLOR to help address those issues. That's also really not the central discussion here. – The Grid (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the map until there can be consensus on the talk page. So far myself and The Grid prefer the svg while Heimlich2 prefers the jpg. Please do not add back any maps to the page until we have consensus. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
88th congress of 1964. All of the states you color red are blue in this map. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/88th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg/750px-88th_United_States_Congress_Senators.svg.png Heimlich2 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map should show how the senators voted. It should not show party because in the context of the time that’s misleading. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people are fighting over, and are confused by the colors blue and red, shows why they should not be used. == Peter NYC (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Queer Eye" actors relevancy

[edit]

Are quotes from a couple reality TV actors relevant in LGBT civil rights? I agree the Equality Act should be mentioned in some form, but I don't why quotes from a couple D-list celebrities are used, even if they are LGBT. 137.99.142.6 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.--—indopug (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis affected the act?

[edit]

Has 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis affected the Civil Rights Act of 1964? I've seen some discussion that it has, but would like to be given confirmation before adding it to the article. Bill3602 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964&oldid=1248632461"