Talk:Desegregation in the United States

Untitled

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)

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.

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

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)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

untitled

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)

"Desegregation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Desegregation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 27 § Desegregation until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Washington crossing the Deleware

Can this be added as a picture on early history, you can see the man of color in the background. Kitchener1914 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)