Talk:Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond ate bits of pumpernickel bread and hamburger while filibustering for 24 hours? Source: "...munching diced pumpernickel and bits of cooked hamburger." [1]
  • ALT1:... that U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond's aides set up a bucket for Thurmond to relieve himself during his 24-hour filibuster? Source: "...Aides tried to avoid defeat by the toilet by setting up a bucket in the cloakroom where Thurmond could pee..." [2]

Created by AviationFreak (talk). Self-nominated at 05:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

• Article is new enough and long enough. I am a little uneasy about how #3 is used - it's essentially a primary source but the first sentence sourced to it looks interpretative. #4 - is that a printout of Thurmond's speech? Regarding #5, it mentions orange juice as well. No copyvio, POV or plagiarism that I can see. First hook makes me wonder what a filibuster is (I know what it is but does everyone else) and why the juice bit is not mentioned. ALT1 is supported in article, by sources and more interesting. Image seems OK to me. No QPQ needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Added another reference to the background section and reworded it to hopefully remove interpretative-ness. #4 is the senate record of the speech, as linked from the senate's website (link is on ref #1's page). I didn't feel that the orange juice was quite as novel as pumpernickel and hamburger, and I agree that ALT1 is a bit more interesting. AviationFreak💬 15:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem I see with #4 (now #6) is that it's a primary source being used for an interpretative claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Right - Removed the record as a ref entirely and supported the info with two secondary sources (#s 6 and 7 currently). AviationFreak💬 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT0, and did some editing on the article to align it with the sources. There is one paragraph that lacks any cite, per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Cited. AviationFreak💬 17:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring tick per Jo-Jo Eumerus' review. Yoninah (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look at what looks to be a very interesting article. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

• Prose quality looks good.
• You might want to explain briefly what a filibuster is. I suppose it seems somewhat obvious, but a reader could easily be confused if he was unfamiliar with that term. (Sure, he could click on the wikilink, but it's usually good to provide some background anyway.)
  • Added to lede. AviationFreak💬 06:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• This is a pretty short article. While that's not a problem in and of itself (see WP:GANOT), I do want to make sure that all necessary information is covered. Have you looked, for instance, through the results that Google Scholar provides? On a cursory search, for instance, I found this article (see page 26), which says that Thurmond's filibuster "would have lasted longer had Thurmond’s doctors not forced him to quit out of concern for kidney damage." If that's true, it certainly belongs in the article. You can also get free access to a variety of scholarly sources through WP:TWL, including JSTOR, ProQuest, etc. You might find something useful there, as well.
  • I realize this article is rather short for a GAN, but I believe all of the main information is covered. I had seen that article previously, but the claim about kidney damage is sourced to an online article in The State entitled "Strom Thurmond: Historic Filibuster Waged To Stop Civil Rights Plan", which seems to have since disappeared from the web. As the original source is now gone, I felt it might not be correct to cite the article. I've added a sentence from Thurmond's daughter's memoir which talks more about his motivation, and I found this book which gives more info on the lead-up to the filibuster (I plan to thoroughly incorporate this source tomorrow).
    • Here's another source re: kidneys. The book it refers to doesn't seem to be available online, but PBS is trustworthy enough on its own. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm also a bit concerned about the quality of the sourcing, which consists mostly of newspaper articles. While that again is not bad in and enough itself, it's usually good to also include citations to books and journal articles. These are more reliable, and they also help ensure that all perspectives are represented. Looking through some of the sites I listed above should help alleviate this issue.
  • I added the newspaper articles in preparation for this nom to include a perspective from the time of the filibuster - I think most of the sources are currently recent online articles, but I agree that including more books and journals will help to improve the reliability and size of the article. Thanks for the review so far, looking forward to more input! AviationFreak💬 06:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll have more to say in the days to come. Until then, thanks for your work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here are some things I found that you might consider including. I'll be glad to provide sources if you need them.
  • The bill was passed just two hours after Thurmond yielded the floor.
    • I can get the time of the bill passing and compare it to the end of Thurmond's filibuster - Would that be WP:OR? If you have a source that states this, please let me know. AviationFreak💬 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Although it's not technically OR (see WP:CALC), here's a source for you anyway. It's paywalled, but I believe you should be able to read it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The other Southern senators had apparently agreed not to filibuster, believing it to be both dangerous (since an even more stringent bill could be passed if they didn't cooperate) and futile (since the bill was clearly going to pass anyway). Many (including arch-segregationist Herman Talmadge) were apparently furious with Thurmond.
    • I believe this is covered somewhere in the book I linked above. AviationFreak💬 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thurmond's filibuster took up 84 pages in the Congressional Record, costing taxpayers thousands in printing costs.
    • I found this, but if you have a more reliable source, please let me know. AviationFreak💬 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • That's basically what I saw: it was a UPI press report, so it appeared in numerous newspapers. Since this one is free-access, it's probably preferable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thurmond had political as well as racial motivations: he was trying to stir up Southern support for his reelection campaign and for a potential third-party presidential candidacy.
    • I wasn't aware that this was intended as part of a reelection strategy - Let me know what source you've found for this. AviationFreak💬 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Here you are. I think this is another syndicated one, probably AP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • William Knowland joked that Thurmond's filibuster was "cruel and unusual punishment to his colleagues".
    • Leaving this source here for when I get a chance to work on the article. AviationFreak💬 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't see a good place to incorporate this into the article - Knowland's comment was clearly a riff on Thurmond's claim about the bill being cruel and unusual, which is discussed in the first sentence of the "Filibuster" section. I feel like that paragraph is a summary of the filibuster and shouldn't include trivia like this, but I also feel like adding the information again somewhere else would be repetitive. AviationFreak💬 06:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
        • That's fine - I agree there's no logical place to put it. (It would have made a great DYK hook, although I see the article has already appeared there.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is one of those rare occasions when I'm actually getting some use out of my free Newspapers.com subscription. Adding some of these things should help bulk up the article, ensuring that it meets the broadness criterion. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Here's another clip, this time from the New York Times, 30 Aug 1957. This one is paywalled as well, but I think you should be able to read it here. I can provide a transcription if necessary.
  • I can't access this source - It seems to be a hard paywall, and the only bit I get access to is a low-res (unreadable) photo of the page, as well as a plaintext blurb from the start of the article. Thank you for your other clippings - I may have to apply for Newspapers.com access myself! AviationFreak💬 06:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Is the second TimesMachine link paywalled as well? I'm not sure how they could paywall a PDF, although perhaps they're more clever than I thought. If it doesn't work, I could try to transcribe it for you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, both are paywalled - After redirecting, the second link even has an HTML Query of "pdf_redirect=true". Don't worry about transcribing the whole thing, just do what you feel would add the most to the article - I think WP:AGF and WP:PAYWALL would even permit you just putting info here or in the article without a direct transcription. AviationFreak💬 06:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I note for the record that a copy of the article has been delivered to the nominator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Take some time to incorporate some of these sources, and we'll see where that leaves us. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of these, with the exceptions of the Knowland "cruel and unusual punishment" quote and the TimesMachine one. Thank you for the sources and the review thus far! AviationFreak💬 06:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ref no. 7 ("Filibuster and Cloture") doesn't seem to be working correctly. It initially delivers me to that site, but I'm then redirected to a separate (and irrelevant) site entitled "About Filibusters and Cloture". If this isn't just me, the link should probably be changed.
  • I believe this is just the result of a rearrangement of the Senate's pages on filibuster - I've updated the URL. AviationFreak💬 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• If the sources permit it, I'd recommend elaborating on Thurmond's arguments against the bill, e.g. unnecessary, violates states' rights, violates right to a jury trial, etc. You might also briefly summarize the provisions of the Act: it's useful background for understanding Thurmond's arguments.

Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have two more sources for you, this time courtesy of HathiTrust. (They've done yeoman's work in providing access to public-domain books, making them a very useful site for historical research.) They are here and here. I'm not sure how much new information they contain, but they should at least enable you to replace some of the less reliable sources. There may be other relevant books available on HathiTrust, so you might want to take a look around.
• After you've included everything that ought to be included, I would suggest expanding the lead so that it fully summarizes the content. One 5–7-sentence paragraph should suffice for an article of this size.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You can consider this review to be on hold pending the resolution of the above issues. (I never bother putting the review formally on hold, which in my view is just extra paperwork.) That being said, I'm in no hurry to finish this up - don't worry if you're unable to get to it anytime soon. I just want to be clear that I've said all I have to say for now. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, I've incorporated them both and bulked up the lede. Let me know if you see anything that could use revision or is questionable. Thank you for your patience as well, I've been putting this off for what feels like a bit too long now :P. AviationFreak💬 03:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The main Civil Rights Act article talks about bringing in cots for Senators. If this is verifiable, it could be included.
  • Appears to be sourced (without page number) to a book that I can't find online. AviationFreak💬 04:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• More importantly, there are a few places where some more background would be useful:
  • The article says almost nothing about Thurmond himself. While there's no need for a mini-biography, some coverage of his previous activities, specifically his 1948 Presidential run, would likely be useful in helping the reader evaluate his position on the Act.
  • Along the same lines, you might note that Thurmond was reelected myriad times.
    • Both this point and the above point addressed by adding a paragraph about Thurmond's personal background. AviationFreak💬 04:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The article almost makes it sound like the Act gave African-Americans the right to vote. In reality, of course, it only provided some additional protections of that preexisting right. I would explain briefly what changes the bill made, thereby aiding the reader in evaluating the merits of Thurmond's position.
    • Added to "Background and goals"
• If possible, I'd elaborate on Thurmond's arguments. It appears that states' rights and jury trials were discussed, and he also contended (based on the 48 state election laws) that the bill was unnecessary.
  • Added a sentence on the reasoning behind reading the election laws, but I don't see too much coverage on states' rights or jury trials - this source says he discussed a history of juries, but exavtly how that related to the bill's main provisions is unclear to me. AviationFreak💬 04:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully, these additions will provide additional context to the reader. Thanks again for your work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe all of the above requests are done or otherwise responded to - I agree that this will help with context, I found myself including stuff I was surprised wasn't already in the article. AviationFreak💬 04:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• His arguments also included - this is a fragment, presumably placed by mistake. I'm guessing you'll either want to remove it or to complete the sentence.
  • Thanks, I completely missed this.
• A bit of a nitpick: the lead says it is "widely seen as racist", while the body says only that it "has been described as racist". Either is fine as long as the lead's content is replicated in the body.
  • Since the filibuster seems to be getting a bit of attention from Congress these days there were a couple new sources available to pull from for this. Changed the second statement to "widely described".
• Optional: Although you rather strongly imply it, the article nowhere identifies Thurmond as a Democrat. Since the IP editors have been clamoring for it, adding it in wouldn't hurt.
  • Added, as it also helps clarify that Thurmond didn't run for the Senate as a Dixiecrat.
• I think the "served in the Senate for 48 years" sentence would fit better at the end, since it provides subsequent history.
  • Done, definitely more of an "Outcome" than a "Background".
• The issue about juries is discussed here, although Thurmond isn't specifically mentioned. (As I recall, other sources do make the connection.) Feel free to add it in.
  • Perhaps I'm just not seeing something blindingly obvious here, but the source above and the one I linked earlier (here) don't appear to match up. The Smithsonian says that the bill included "an amendment giving a person charged with contempt for disobeying a judge’s order... the right to a trial by jury", while the AP writes that Thurmond "launched into a history of Anglo-Saxon juries to counter the bill's proposal to allow judges to punish cases of civil contempt without a jury trial". The way I'm reading these it looks like they directly contradict each other. Did the bill want to allow or disallow trial by jury to those charged with civil contempt?
    • As a result of a compromise with the other Southerners, the bill required juries in all but the most minor cases. However, this wasn't good enough for Thurmond, who insisted that juries be required in all cases. Crespino discusses this (in Strom Thurmond's America) at page 113. (He actually has a lot that might worth including; see pgs. 113-118. I'd especially consider adding more about Thurmond's interactions with Russell, Talmadge, and the Southern Caucus. There's also some new information about printing costs and...bodily functions.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• If you care, the article on Republicans/the Republican Party is linked twice in the body. See MOS:DUPLINK.
  • Done.

My comments are getting less and less substantive, which is usually a good sign that the review is nearing its close. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Thanks for all your help thus far! AviationFreak💬 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I did respond above to your question about juries, although you may not have seen it because of a subsequent edit. I think some of that information, for instance jury trials, Thurmond's combative relationships with other Southerners, and the rumors about the catheter (also mentioned in the BBC source), probably ought to be included, so I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Once that's all taken care of, I'll probably be ready to pass the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in these additions, WP:REALLIFE and procrastination have prevented me from working on this article. I believe I've added the above info, with the exception of changing the printing cost from 6k - 7k. I don't think this change is super necessary, and I feel like we already rely pretty heavily on the Crespino source. Thank you for your explanation of the bench trial thing, as well as your patience. All the best, AviationFreak💬 03:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a lovely essay. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained below, I am content that the article in its present form meets the GA criteria. Thanks again for your hard work in improving this article, and I wish you the best in your future editing endeavors. Very truly yours, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

While this article certainly still has room for improvement, I am satisfied that it satisfies the criteria satisfactorily.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No reasonable reader would have issues understanding this prose.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead could perhaps be expanded a bit more.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   FA reviewers would probably prefer that the article be cited to more books and fewer online sources/newspapers. But for GA purposes, they're sufficiently reliable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool finds no issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article covers all relevant bases. Some more nuanced information about this filibuster's context and legacy would perhaps be useful, but of course comprehensiveness isn't the standard.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Photo appears to be in the public domain since the copyright apparently wasn't renewed.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Adding alt-text is encouraged but not required.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

On the FAC archive

When systematic issues with the source–text integrity are found, the only solution is to re-check all the references to make sure that verifiability is maintained. (For example, I did this here). This is usually a time consuming process, but if you're able to complete it within 14 days the waiting period can be waived. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha - Thanks for the guidance, hopefully I'll be back at FAC soon! AviationFreak💬 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of political party

Several recent edits have placed the fact that Thurmond was a Democrat at the time of the filibuster more prominently in the lede of the article. This is already stated near the end of the Background section and frankly I don't think it's particularly relevant to the article, but if folks have other opinions we ought to follow consensus. Pinging Rohintonr, Extraordinary Writ (GA Reviewer), and Kavyansh.Singh as editors who have connections to the article. AviationFreak💬 20:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article and provide important information about the article (WP:LEAD). The fact that he was a senator from South Carolina (a southern state), I think, is enough for the lead. Moreover, it was Thurmond's filibuster, not endorsed/helped by Democratic Party. The group of Democratic Southern senators explicitly were against an organised filibuster, and criticized Thurmond's effort. I know that party affiliation is a major detail, and should be definitely mentioned in the body, but I am concerned that putting it so early in the lead would maybe mislead the reader (since today, filibusters are organised by many members of the same party in a partisan way). And just for the note, Thurmond became a Republican in 1964. So I don't think we should be mentioning it in the lead. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Wikisource to infobox

As an example, look at the last items of the infobox in the Cheesecake article. Could this be done for the Wikisource article here as well? Seems better to have this in a single infobox instead of two. I have linked the two items on Wikidata, but not sure how this is done normally. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I just did it. Others will have to decide which one they prefer. Madeline (part of me) 17:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Thanks, looks great! PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Child

Shouldn't it be noted that at the time he was arguing forcefully against rights for African American's Thurmond had an illegitimate black daughter (Essie Mae Washington-Williams) who by that time was 22 years old? Remember (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrate

There is no mention that Strom Thurmond was well known as a Dixiecrat that had run on segregationist platform in 1948 for President of the United States. This should be included as well for context about Thurmond as a politician. Remember (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Title

The current title contains the word "of" twice. I do not like that, does anyone have any opinions on that? PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m unusually sensitive to tiny details like this; I like how “1957” is properly set in oldstyle figures. But this isn’t worth moving the article for. Visually, to me, “Strom Thurmond filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act” separates “Civil Rights Act” from its “the”. I do think it should be “Thurmond’s”, but the current title is probably consistent with practice on Wikipedia. Roches (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Text of the filibuster

The article should include a link to the text of the filibuster under “Further reading” so that people can see exactly what Strom Thurmond said when he talked for over 24 hours when he knew the Civil Rights Act was going to pass and he knew his racist credentials were strong enough to get him re-elected without the filibuster. Since this is a GA/FA, I think this is better left to someone familiar with the article. Roches (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's already linked in the infobox. Madeline (part of me) 13:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)