SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + + + + + +
→A few issues in the article: new section
Anyway, I just figured Conservapedia could use this information. My current website isn't really political so I'm not going to be using this information except when debating anyway, so I figured I'd put it on the site if you want to go into more detail with it. I may not have time to work on the section much more so if anyone wants to research, detail, and source this more thoroughly it would be with my encouragement. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 03:04, 2 September 2013 (EDT)
Anyway, I just figured Conservapedia could use this information. My current website isn't really political so I'm not going to be using this information except when debating anyway, so I figured I'd put it on the site if you want to go into more detail with it. I may not have time to work on the section much more so if anyone wants to research, detail, and source this more thoroughly it would be with my encouragement. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 03:04, 2 September 2013 (EDT)
== A few issues in the article ==
* Does the title need to be completely capitalized? Most spellings simply read "civil rights movement."
* "Democrat reaction" This subsection header in of itself quietly promotes the notion, propagated by Marxist historians, that Democratic Party repression of blacks during Reconstruction was "reactionary" and therefore "right-wing."
* "The Republican coalition in the South fell apart in the 1870s, and conservative white Redeemers took control." There's some truth to it, though vague. The Redeemers which ended up taking control at the fall of Reconstruction were indeed on the conservative ''wing of the Democratic Party'', namely [[Wade Hampton]], though were not quite conservative overall.
* "Sern. John Kennedy voted against [the Civil Rights Act of 1957]." How many times have I explained the simple fact that Kennedy's "opposition" was voting for a weakening amendment? He ultimately voted in favor of final passage, so this vague statement is 95% misleading for readers. The user who spammed this copypasta should correct this, or I will in every article where it's been plastered.
—[[User:LT|<code><span style="background:#FF8181">'''LT'''</span></code>]] '''''[[User talk:LT|<sup>(Matthew 26:52)</sup>]]''''' Thursday, 14:23, May 18, 2023 (EDT)