Talk:Separate but equal/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Regarding Consistent Nomenclature

This article seems to have a NPOV problem, with regard to naming different groups and factions equally. For example: “in which African Americans and Americans of European descent would receive” should be “in which African-Americans and European-Americans would receive” or “in which Americans of African descent and Americans of European descent would receive”

And I suggest “with poorer facilities being allotted to Blacks” be “with poorer-quality facilities being allotted to Blacks than to Whites” for similar reasons.

And I suggest that ithis be added: "Though in the U.S. the 'separate but equal' doctrine has no longers holds de jure; it very much holds de facto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.194.245 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Meanings

Maybe I'll add this myself someday, but we should also talk about the most common meaning of "separate but equal" in Canada: the relationship Québec has with the rest of Canada. --Zippanova

What about the meaning as applied to gay marriage? The idea that homosexuals can have separate names for marriage, but somehow it will still be equal? That's basically what "civil unions" are-- the idea that, if you make a purely governmental function as an alternate possibility to a partly governmental and partly religious function, that it won't somehow be treated differently. VMMolotov (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What I was very surprised not to find here is the use of Separate But Equal in sports. Title IX promotes the separation of sexes with regard to sports teams, an issue that begs for further discussion. --dahkota 10/12/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahkota (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ERA

An additional section to this small page could be concerns that the Equal Rights Amendment would obliterate some positive aspects of "separate but equal," such as separate bathrooms for men and women, military draft of women, etc. Opinions? Ejnogarb (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

American civil war policy?

The first section starts with this sentence.

The American Civil War (1861–1865) policy yielded the cessation of legal slavery in the U.S.,

I don't understand what the word "policy" means here. --Aleph-4 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

iconic image?

why doesn't this page have the classic "white/coloured" drinking fountain image, (top result for separate but equal on google image search), there are literally thousands of sites with this image (as find similar shows) the image is public domain. 86.173.119.144 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical content

Under the section "Was it Separate and Equal?" there are a few sentences that are poorly constructed and are thus rendered nonsensical.

"The conductor of the train collected passenger tickets at their seats, when Plessy told the conductor he was 7/8ths white and 1/9th. Plessy said he resented sitting in an “all white car” and was arrested immediately."

Specifically "7/8ths white and 1/9th". What does this even mean? Did the writer mean "7/8ths white and 1/8th black"? As written, this does not make sense.

Also, "Plessy said he resented..." This is an ambiguous use of pronouns. I assume the "he" refers to the conductor. If this is the case, then the sentence should be edited to remove the ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.143.242 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Goverment vs private

The "Under the doctrine, services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation were allowed to be separated along racial lines" part is poorly worded. The 14th amendment restricts the government, not individuals. Unless there's something I'm missing here, private services and property are irrelevant to this legal doctrine, yet this list doesn't distinguish between, for example, private and public medical care, the way it's worded it looks like it applied to both equally. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot the bit about government requiring that private services be segregated; I've made an edit that could probably use some ironing out, but should make the sentence closer to it's intended meaning. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Broken sources

4. "Act of August 30, 1890, ch. 841, 26 Stat. 417, 7 U.S.C. 322 et seq." Act of 1890 Providing for the Further Endowment and Support Of Colleges of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts.

This link 404s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pie-jacker875 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The lead currently contains the following:

... be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the former Confederacy.

I marked this as dubious because it is well documented that the North was extensively segregated before the Civil War. I tend to believe segregation was probably more formalized in the North than the South in the antebellum period simply because in the South almost all blacks were slaves and so it is hard to imagine why there would be a need for extensive segregation laws. But that latter aspect I have not seen documented per se. Point being, though, that this needs to be rephrased in some manner.

For whatever reason Deisenbe has chosen to start an edit war by removing the dubious tag. Not sure what to say about that ...

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:9C37:19FD:8AC4:C065 (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What I say about it, in fact said already, is that I'm not going to discuss it with an IP number. Put your name on what you do. deisenbe (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Separate but equal. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 09:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)