Talk:Desegregation in the United States/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Desegregation in the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Desegregation. 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) 10:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes everything read in the article is relevant to the article topic, although there was a section labeled "U.S. Military" which is interesting because I never thought about segregation in the military. When discussing the topic of desegregation, one assumes that the discussion will solely be based on African Americans. However in this article, other cultures such as Asian Americans were discussed which is a great insight on the struggles of segregation with others. Something that could be added to the article is a section dedicated to desegregation today and how segregation still affects people, especially African Americans. It is a very short article which is surprising because desegregation is such a huge topic and should have much more information. The article is not biased and seems to be based on facts only. The "Modern History" section seems to be a bit over presented because some of the words are repeated and the facts seem repetitive. All the links in the article work and are related to the topic of desegregation. All of their sources come from separate wikipedia pages and from articles.

Most of the conversations in the talk page are about improving the article and about how some information in the article should be deleted or kept.Odecast22 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Desegregation. 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) 10:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern civil rights movement

In the last paragraph in the section Desegregation#Modern civil rights movement, I removed the following as a supposed "impediment" to desegregation (or consequence of those impediments, it's hard to say which was intended): "…leading to an emphasis on equality of opportunity as opposed to result." This doesn't make sense to me: desegregation was always intended as a means of achieving of equality of opportunity, not of result. So what is this supposed to mean? I've taken it out because the meaning was not clear.

By the way, I think that everything in the list of "impediments" could use citation as to who says it is an impediment. I happen to agree with what it currently says, but POV I agree with is still POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect instead of an article

Desegregation (Redirected from Racial equality)

I can't grasp why the redirect is there. The two issues are completely different! Deseg is a more or less specific US topic, while the "Racial equality" article should be its own, summarizing scientific research into the equality and common one-raceness of diverse colors of mankind and the issue of how the different medical problems or diverse physique of races are insignificant differences. There should be a treatise of controversial research which claims to show negro only have 95 IQ on average while whites have 105. There should be some paragraph on denial of racial egality (US south, hitler, imperial japs, ultra-zionism, etc.) There should be a paragraph on diverse treaties that proclaim racial egality, etc.

All in all, destroy the redirect and create a decent article for "Racial equality". Only a disambiguation line should stay to point to the america-specific desegregation topic, because en.wikipedia.org is NOT equal to us.wikipedia.org!

195.70.48.245 12:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that it is not a very useful redirect (though better than a blank page). I'm not sure from the above that I would like the article you propose to write there, but that is another matter. Usually, unless a redirect is truly a synonym or there has been a clear consensus to keep it a redirect, you (or anyone) should feel free to replace a redirect with a more appropriate article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I also see a disparity here, nowhere in this article is the issue of races being equal being addressed. Racial equality should be an article describing arguments whether races are equal or not(the Inuit race can handle cold weather better than the African races). This is an interesting topic that is being overlooked. Modern social values insists that all races are equal, but science has shown significant differences between races. This scientific data has been repressed due to fear of being labeled racist. Much science that deals with the difference between races has been shunned due to belief that it is ignorant or partisan. I would like to see a NPOV article about the arguments of whether races are equal or not. This of course will be a heated debate with ignorance attempting to infiltrate from all sides. But I think two or three people with good brains can keep this in check. I will found such an article eventually if nobody else does and name it Racial equality. HighInBC 01:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not the sense of "Racial equality" most people would be looking up and we would do a disservice to our readers in putting such an article at that title. Racial equality normally refers to equality of rights. Some of what you are talking about would probably belong in the (existing stub) article Racial grouping. Some of it is already discussed in Race, especially Race#Arguments for scientific validity (which I strongly suggest you read if you are going to work on these topics at all). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncited propaganda cut from article

Some people believe that desegregation put the final nail into the coffin of cities like New Orleans, St. Louis, and Detroit. All three of these cities had reached their highest ever population during the early sixties, and after desegregation, white flight brought tax dollars and professionals out of the cities. Already St. Louis and Detroit have lost over half of their highest ever populations and new orleans has lost about one third of its highest population. About 85% of those losses attributed to movement of whites to the suburbs.

No citation, in particular on causality, which always requires citation. Looks to me like segregationist propaganda. If this argument can be attributed, then maybe it belongs in the article, but "some people believe" is not a citation. Some people believe the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese. - Jmabel | Talk 21:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We would like to be added as a link on this page

Hi, we are from Catalyst magazine. We think that visitors to this page would benefit from the articles in our free magazine and on our website. We would like to be added as a link if possible. If so, please let us know at intern@catalystmagazine.org

Catalyst is a new magazine from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), in the UK. Catalyst was launched in January, and content from the first six issues can be seen at www.catalystmagazine.org, along with regular web exclusive articles. Catalyst’s aim is to encourage debates on race and related issues like equality, identity, nationality, belonging and citizenship, engaging with views across the political spectrum to encourage frank and open discussion.

It is international in scope, covering anything from policy and the law, to economics, politics, sport, the arts and so on. It was launched to shed light on particular issues, rather than promote a CRE line. It is a free, bi-monthly publication, written in plain English so that it is accessible to all, and aimed at a broad, general readership. Anyone can subscribe via the website or by calling our distributors, TSO, on (+44) 0870 240 3697.

Thanks!

So what is the link you are proposing? Do you have some specifically relevant article? The fact that you are about a related subject area wouldn't typically be enough to link the site as such, but if you have articles that are specifically on desegregation, (rather than, say, positive discrimination or interracial sensitivity) please feel free to indicate here what those would be, and I promise to give them a sympathetic lookover. But I'm not going to go looking through the whole website to see if some article is on-topic. And neither is the typical reader of an encyclopedia article, hence the request. - Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)