Talk:Desegregation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Excessive use of the wikipedia links, as when "busing" is linked to an article on transportation vehicles, is maybe not improving the information value of the article. It must be assumed that people reading English texts understand what a bus is, and it has absolutely no relevance whether segregation is fought by trolley busses, mini busses, trains or any other means of transportation.
-- Ruhrjung 12:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If the term busing is also used in the case of use of trains, please add that to the article. The bus is relevant, the concept is even named after it. If you do not want to read about buses, do not click on the link. I do not find your links to years useful, but I would never undo this kind of effort somebody made, because apparently somebody finds it useful and it does not harm - Patrick 13:56 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'll re-read this article again, but I'm pretty sure there is no mention that many Southern jurisdictions did not integrate their schools until well into the 1960s. For example, Jacksonville, Florida did not integrate until 1967. TheCustomOfLife 02:27, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

A few comments:

1. This article could use a lot of work
2. I've started a separate article at Racial integration specifically focusing on how integration is not exactly the same thing as desegragation. It's a different focus, so I'd like to work on it in a separate place for a while, but eventually we might want to, well, integrate them.
3. We seem not to have an article anywhere on the desegragation of the U.S. military. We could really use one.

-- Jmabel 05:15, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Redirect instead of an article 2 Modern civil rights movement 3 Uncited propaganda cut from article 4 San Francisco 5 We would like to be added as a link on this page 6 Distinguishing between 'Desegregation' & 'racial equality' 7 Not-so-subtly biased against the Democratc Party

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] San Francisco

Whatever the intent of the writer was, the references to the group Chinese for Affirmative Action look blatantly POV. If what the CAA did was ironical, or paradoxical, then use one of those words, but there is no need to dedicate an entire sentence to demonstrating how flawed the CAA is (which isn't relevant to the article as it stands anyway). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.107.156 (talk • contribs) 10 September 2006.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Distinguishing between 'Desegregation' & 'racial equality'

I reached this article [Desegregation] when I clicked 'racial equality'. It's structure implies that 'Desegregation' - an issue specific to the USA - and 'racial equality' - an issue relevant globally - are synonymous. I would suggest that a suitable authority make a new article on Racial Equality, and then un-redirect. Sorry for the clumsy phrase. If I considered myself knowledgeable enough, I assure you I would do it. 81.137.234.57 14:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)johnnydee

[edit] Not-so-subtly biased against the Democratc Party

Appears to be biased against one political party.

In an election year, imagine that!

For centuries, blacks have been discriminated against by all of America, not just members of one party.

A word search turns up zero hits for Republican and 4 hits for Democrat, none linked with the name Truman, who was clearly a Democrat.

Not mentioned is Directive 5120.36, issued while another Democrat, John Kennedy, was president.

Not mentioned is Democrat LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the entire Democratic Party switched over to the Republican Party. Wait a minute, only some of them?

I remember now - it was segregationists who defected, and they have been a reliable part of the Republican Party ever since.

Roelantsfan (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)