Talk:The Negro Motorist Green Book

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Negro Motorist Green Book → Green Book (guide) – I'll preface – this is not about political correctednes, I've only noticed that the publication changed names a lot of times.

1. Looking at the contents of the page, it's clear that the a lot of referenced reliable sources commonly use Green Book as a reference.

2. The only non-changed part of a title is Green Book. Here, The New York Libraries Digital Collection – The Negro Travelers’ Green Book (1952—1959), The Travelers’ Green Book (1960—1967). The last name persisted for 6 years.

3. And the last, WP:IDENTITY – When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally oppose. The Negro Motorist Green Book was the original title. It was never officially changed prior to the Civil Rights Act (which as the article states effectively made it obsolete). Also. as it was specifically aimed at black travelers the title of the article should reflect that, even if it was change subsequently to try to appeal to a wider audience after the official end of segregation. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "It was never officially changed prior to the Civil Rights Act (which as the article states effectively made it obsolete)." – however, juging from the museum pages, it was, and it was before Civil Rights Act, it's just not reflected in the article. And barring that, the article itself says that the book was renamed in 1952 – "In 1952, Green renamed the publication The Negro Travelers' Green Book". And, well, the article is lacking in many parts – it does not say that the Green died in 1960, and his widow renamed the book The Travelers’ Green Book and continued publishing it until 1967. But I'm not in the position to add it. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting here the source for Green's death, and the renaming of book to The Travelers’ Green Book – 'Green Book' in 26th Year // Pittsburgh Courier. — 1962. — 9 June (no. 19). -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word "negro" was only dropped for the last few editions. It doesn't matter how others refer to the book. I am sure "Green Book" was often used as shorthand. What matters is what the book was actually called. For the vast majority of its existence the word negro was part of the title. The article title should reflect that. Other variations of the title are reflected in the lede. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it does, even as a shorthand – WP:IDENTITY. So there's that. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The shorthand can be mentioned as an alternative name, but the article title should reflect the official title of the book as it was from 1936 to 1960. WP:IDENTITY is about individuals and groups where there may be nicknames etc. involved (e.g. Jimmy Carter rather than James) or the need to be specific (Ethiopian rather than African). It does not apply to something like a book that was published with a given title. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am going to raise an objection, because I feel that you misinterpret the page's contents – it in itself states that the name was changed more than one time – as I said, it was also changed in 1952 into The Negro Travelers’ Green Book. When writing a russian version of the article, and making it featured, I have felt that the title doesn't do justice – after all, Britannica explains all name-changes, including the addition of hypnen in 40ies.
            • Just to note, I am making an argument along the lines in WP:AT ("the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles"). So, there's that. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • The name may have been changed more than once (and that is reflected in the lede) but up to 1960 it included the word "negro", and so the title of the article should reflect that. Arguing that "negro" should be removed from the title is a non-starter. You can raise all the objections you want, but that is the fact of the matter. The article title does reflect the subject - it reflects the original name of the book that continued with only minor variations (but always retaining the word "negro") until 1960 - the vast, vast majority of the book's existence. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, don't misinterpret my words – I said, as "going to raise the an objection", that you are misinterpreting the article (and my source that I provided later) and I clarified, why. Poking me with "you can raise all the objections you want" is pretty rude, regardless of the expressed opinions. Thanks. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We use WP:COMMONNAME. It seems the commonly used name is "Green Book", and it certainly helps the move to use the shorter title that many people became aware of this publication due to the movie Green Book (film). There is a disambiguation page at Green Book, but that's not an ideal response to the common use of "Green Book" because the list is long. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent movie it is logical to create a "Green Book (Guide)" page that redirects to this article. But we shouldn't change the title of this article. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are many books with green covers, and many books named or nicknamed after the color of their covers. Modern use of "green" to mean "ecological" adds to the ambiguity. Keeping the word "Negro" or equivalent is the best way to disambiguate this book easily. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point about the use of "green" to mean "ecological". I think we could at least create a redirect at Green Book (guide), though, and maybe some work could be done on that disambiguation page so it is easier to find what people are looking for. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mightn't the proposed title be confused with the Michelin Green Guides? —  AjaxSmack  06:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Lard Almighty wrote "... the Civil Rights Act (which as the article states effectively made it obsolete). ...". The law is not a magic wand :: likely it will take a while for everybody in the affected areas to change their mentalities and obey the Civil Rights Act. Until then, a guide book will be needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I was quoting from the article: "The 1966 edition was the last to be published after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the guide effectively obsolete by outlawing racial discrimination in public accommodations." I agree that attitudes take a long time to change, but at least from 1964 the law banned segregation rather than allowing it, so a guide that listed unsegregated establishments was effectively obsolete. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "but at least from 1964 the law banned segregation" :: that is true de jure, but how long is it taking for all the establishments to start obeying that law de facto? I am in England and cannot easily go to the USA to look for myself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We're getting a bit off-topic here, but the point is that legally establishments could no longer discriminate, so a guide to establishments that didn't discriminate was rather moot, since they all didn't, in theory at least. Things changed and where tacit or overt discrimination persisted, people simply began asserting their rights, because the law now enabled them to do so, through the courts if necessary. Sadly it's still going on. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A%22green+book%22 for articles whose names contain "green book" (ignoring case of letters). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Proposed title is ambiguous. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.