Jump to content

Talk:Affirmative action/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Source of Improvement?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is open to the public and seems to be much more neutral. Perhaps an experienced editor or well-meaning Wikipedian could incorporate some of this information? Docmcconl (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


I read the article at the referenced link above. 

"“Affirmative action” means positive steps taken..." does not sound unbiased to me.  From the first
word it basically attempts to sell the idea of AA to the reader. Probably much better
used as reference in the Proponents section.

Observation on Swedish views on affirmative action

Inside the main article, the Swedish view has been marked as questionable (discutable, suspicious). I would like to show that this is not the case, given the Swedish conditions.

US libertarians and conservatives attack affirmative action from a right-wing viewpoint. They believe that equal legal rights plus free market, free elections, freedom of speech, of association and of religion will create sooner or later equal opportunities for everyone, because this is what serves best the interests of the "invisible hand" of market capitalism, and because this is where free democratic processes lead to. They believe that affirmative action will determine people to segregate, see e.g. Allan Bloom's argument about the value of an university diploma for an African-American in The Closing of the American Mind, Part One. Students. Relationships. Race. pp. 91-97 in an 1987 Simon & Schuster paperback.

The Swedes have a combination of market economy with socialist elements (like a strong welfare state). They attack affirmative action from the left-wing, so to speak (left-wing: certainly in comparison to US Republicans and Democrats). They consider that all people should be equal to each other, that all people in society have to get proper education according to their personal merrit. They believe that equality of chances is achieved by giving everyone equal opportunity to develop their personal talents. They believe that their country is defined by the solidarity of its citizens and by equality before the law among their citizens (solidarity of equals). They believe that the best way for the emancipation of minorities is through making use of the social capillarity, like giving their children an education according to their native talents. They fear that when people are treated by the state as being different, sooner or later they will begin to segregate. This segregation would then attack the state as being the union (or solidarity) of equals, and people who realize their differences will begin to quarrel about their differences. They think that the individual should pay allegiance to society (as a whole), not to his/her own majority/minority group. They believe that differences between groups should be a question of personal preference, like in artistic taste, or like a consumer choosing among products at a supermarket. Briefly, their view is that treating people differently leads to less solidarity, more quarrel and more segregation. They don't like the thought that "some are more equal than others".

In making such a comparison between US and Sweden, I have to say that it is much, much easier for a poor Swede to get university education than it is for a poor US citizen to get it. An averagely talented Swedish student of poor descent can be fairly sure he/she is able to enlist for and complete university, if he/she likes to study and works well at doing it. An US student of poor descent has to be excellent in order to receive enough funding for his/her university study. (Perhaps this insight does not apply in all individual cases, but I'm inclined to think that it is statistically sound.)

My insights are based upon background information on US and Sweden, and upon observing the reactive sensibilies of a Swedish colleague student (an anthropologist doing his diversity Master study in Amsterdam). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

previously disadvantaged

"...South Africa. The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by not only advancing people from designated groups but also specifically dis-advancing the others...."

I think the term you were be looking at is "previously disadvantaged", which is highly misleading. There is also a hidden agenda behind that for advancing people in the network of the ANC. Well, that's the whole idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.252 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


Words have meanings

Affirmative Action has changed meanings, and I have sourced an example. Someone is wishing to delete this without any discussion.

Claim: Affirmative Action in 1961 meant ending discrimination. Today Affirmative Action is used to described programs which provide preferential treatment based on race, examples garaunted admissions to college or employment. If true this is very important. If important it should be kept.

Here is one of what will probably could be many sources:

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/affirmative_action.html

1) Is there a change in the usage of Affirmative Action? 2) Is the change in terms important for the article? 3) Are their better sources to use?

Lets work together instead of reverting without reading carefully or adding our own prejudices, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, basing your agument for the text you wish to include on the source you have presented is not allowed under what Wikipedia calls no original research, particularly the provision called synthesis. You are taking what you percieve as two different uses from two different time periods and making an analysis that the meaning has changed. To include the statement that the meaning of Affirmative Action has changed over time, you would need to find a published reliable source that specifically makes that analysis, not you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's first sentence is fine the way it is. This is an article about affirmative action around the world, not in the United States. Even if the IP editor comes back with sources, the second sentence of the lede isn't the appropriate place to discuss what the term means, and has meant in the past, in the United States. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


1) Not original research, in fact, from my view Malik is engaging in original research by using the modern usage of Affirmative Action when reading Kennedy's exective order.

I've made the sourced claim that Affirmative Action had a different meaning. Here is Kennedy's original executive order: http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html

It established:

1) A policy of nondiscrimination 2) Contractors not hire or discriminate or treat employees differently based on race, creed, color, or national origin.

The usage of the phrase "take affirmative action" is being taken out of context in a POV mannter by this edit warrior to mean preferential treatment, which is today's usage. In 1961 Affirmative Action did not have the same meaning it had today, it meant taking action against discrimination by NOT discriminating.

In 1969 Nixon was the first to have a program of garunteed employment for minorities which altered the meaning of Affirmative Action. See original source used paragraph 4: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580666/affirmative_action.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your interpretation of WP:OR. Also, please sign your posts by typing 4 squiggle signs (~) Thank you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Take Affirmative Action" did not mean "give preferential treatment" It is very clear in the language of the executive order that it was to be a race neutral policy. Today "Affirmative Action" is not race neutral. This is a distinction that is clear as night and day. These differences should be noted in the article.

"Affirmative Action" was clearly directed against White communities right from the beginning. Don't be mislead by nice sounding political correct lingo and any kind of Newspeak. The whole thing is a ploy to mess up society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.252 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To assume that the usage of Affirmative Action in Kennedy's executive order is anything but race neutral is to engage in OR and POV without Source. This is especially bad if you are making these claims as an excuse to delete something from an article. Essentially you're letting one set of OR and POV get by without question, this is a seroious point which I am attempting to address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You are making interpretations and analysis yourself which is not allowed. All interpretations and analysis must be done by relaible third party sources. Period. There is no more discussion about this. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the source claiming that Kennedy did not want a race neutral policy? In fact, by his own words this was a policy of nondiscrimination. To assume it is anything but race neutral is subjecting this to interpretation. This is not hard to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.172.111 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please sign you posts (~x4) - little Signbot is getting tired of following you around. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

it'll do what it is programed to do. Now this is only a reveiw of a book but here it states: Anderson next turns to John Kennedy’s and Lyndon Johnson’s push for racial equality. This is the most familiar story in the book. Kennedy’s 1961 executive order is the first use of affirmative action with regard to race, earlier usages focusing on the rights of workers. LBJ strong armed Congress to win passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. These revolutionary laws promised an end to discrimination. Both the language and the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act commanded non-discrimination, a color and gender-blind solution to the problem of racism, sexism, and religious discrimination. But, Anderson points out, the colorblind ideal foundered on two practical problems. How do you define discrimination? How do you measure compliance with nondiscrimination laws (p.94)? The answers forced government to look for color and gender in order to create a color and gender-blind society out of a discriminatory one.http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/anderson105.htm

This should get us started on the right direction, though by no means the best source. Here it is once again mentioned that Affirmative action started out as race neutral. By this book and this reviewer it changed from race neutrality and nondiscrimination to racial preferencing out of necessity (enforcment, legal definitions) Whether or not the change is good or bad is not my point, only that there have been two meanings.

Studyworld Studynotes

The quote :

lists this site as its reference. However, as far as I can tell, the text at this site is merely a homegrown essay. We should look for a better source for this, and the quote itself may need to be modified as well to reflect that we are citing either a court case or an opinion (from a relevant source, not a non-authoritative blogger).

There are probably more like this, both for and against affirmative action, through which we should sift. My guess would be that they are POV-pushing tools. I'll try to take a look perhaps this weekend, and if anyone feels inclined to help, please do. :) WDavis1911 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination

Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination are not the same thing. Positive discrimination is selection based on desirable traits, a completely different concept to affirmative action. Kvparr (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not the place to debate affirmative action. Second, you're just playing semantics. Boiled down to its core, racial discrimination consists of giving a person preference based on their race. In this instance, African Americans are being given a preference based on the fact that they are African American. The pro-affirmative action argument is that this type of discrimination is justified due to slavery, but everyone freely concedes that this is discrimination (the only issue is whether its justified). Much as I'd like to have this debate, this isn't the place to do it, so I'd invite you to take it up somewhere else. Idag (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Walter E. Williams' two articles, Academic Mismatch I and Academic Mismatch II, are worth adding. Asteriks (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia and Republic of Macedonia

Why are they placed in the section "Africa"?--141.20.72.153 (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

America's article is seperate

I noticed in the controversy section it makes many mentions to Americans. Doesn't the United States have their own page for their own criticism of affirmative action? It seems that this criticism should be what has been looked at on a global scale, not country. Jwh335 (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much of the article — but especially the criticism — is US-centric. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I've just moved the entire section about controversy to the US's page of affirmative action. Jwh335 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the same definition as the United States article. Does affirmative action have a wider scope than race/ethnicity/gender anywhere else in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.3.74 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Beginnings of Affirmative Action?

I have heard that the "reverse discrimination" lawsuits were started by African-Americans who resented their hirings/promotions based on their race and not their skills/performance. This seems unfathomable to me. I heard it was a White American who started the lawsuits. No one I can think of, short of Jesus Christ, would do anything but cherish the fact they got hired and not question it. (Barack Obama sure hasn't-!!) Does anyone know for sure? And, personally, I do not subscribe to the term "reverse discrimination"; as I feel all discrimination is discrimination no matter what the reason.68.108.211.254 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some kind of bizarre Internet legend. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename the Article

The term “Affirmative action” comes from Kennedy’s executive order 10925. As such, it is specific legal wording dealing with a very specific policy. Even in the US, Affirmative Action only refers to policies instituted in response to the federal mandate. Hence, I recommend renaming the article “Affirmative Action in the United States” to just “Affirmative Action”—that wording only applies to US policies.

When listening to the BBC in a report about hiring practices in France, the proposed policy was referred to as “positive discrimination,” and it seemed both the UK and France understood what this term meant. I propose that this article be renamed to “Positive discrimination,” and that the “reverse discrimination” page to which “positive discrimination currently re-directs be consolidated into a sub-heading of this article. Dolewhite (talk)

Nope. Wikipedia articles go under the most common term for the thing. That's a basic rule of our system. You could create a redirect, if you wanted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Affirmative action" is only the most common name *in the United States*, and what you've got here are a bunch of tags complaining about the fact the article focuses on *The United States.* I'm not saying that the thing most commonly referred to as "Affirmative Action" shouldn't be described in an article called "Affirmative Action." There are separate articles for Reservation in India and Employment equity in Canada, so why should there be none for the very specific federal program of Affirmative Action?

It's also disingenuous to suggest that the most common name is used. Slander and Libel redirect to "Defamation" as a common page. Defamation is probably used less than either of the other two, but it's understood that defamation is the correct term for referring to the broader subject at hand. This is very similar here. Affirmative Action is a very specific set of federally imposed standards. Positive discrimination is the larger subject. If you look at articles cited as a reference for the Reservation in India article, you see very few that mention "Affirmative Action," and most of those that do are either American or translated to English by Americans. That Americans are the bulk of the Anglophone world is irrelevant, as is the misuse of the term. Dolewhite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

This needs a source

In section five, under "implementation worldwide", in the Americas part under Canada, it states:

In some instances, people are hired for jobs who have lesser credentials than other people applying, simply because their status is higher.

Is there a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.4.42 (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've indicated that the sentence needs a citation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral POV?? "No Original Research"??

Now whatever do these "policies" mean? How can *ANYONE* have a neutral POV about such a charged political topic? Every human being in the USA is either benefited or harmed by the group of Government and NGO policies lumped together as "Affirmative Action". How can you be neutral about being helped by some policy? How can be neutral when you are being discriminated against? This is silly. Also, this is a controversy, not a piece of fruit.

"No original research" implies an ex cathedra approach to the subject. "Authorities" have done all that research, of course without bias, and without financial support from organizations with interests both financial and social in the results. Of course let's quote them. Close the book, ring the bell, put out the candle.

The fact is that the subject is controversial, as are most Government policies systematically favoring one race over another, one sex over another, one ethnic group over another. The fact is that the difference between Government enforced discrimination and "Affirmative Action" is that in the first case you like the group being discriminated against, and in the second you do not. Bald but true. The rest is hand waving. In both cases the fact is that the characteristics of the individual people involved are irrelevant and what is important is the group they were born into.

--Zerasmus (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Positive Action

I've provided some further information about Affirmative Action in the UK, particularly All Women Shortlists and the 2009 Equality Bill. I've also added the term positive action as this is more commonly encountered in the UK (as is positive discrimination, but normally only by opponents of positive action). The term seems to be becoming more common in the UK, and (very notably) it is used in the text of the Equality Bill, which will become law this year.Alboran (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In the first line of the article; masturbation ethnicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.119.36 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is terrible

I know a bunch of the earlier comments said the article used to be too anti-affirmative action, but now it's way too biased for affirmative action, namely used of the word "myths" before the explanation of an incomplete list of points against it. The biggest argument against it, in my opinion, is that racism is making a judgment or decision based on race, and so, since Affirmative action supports decisions based on race, it is racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.108.32 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done a quick fix here, but the article has been tagged for a long time and needs an overhaul.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Page targetted by banned user Karmaisking

Just a heads up. The active sockpuppet-using banned user Karmaisking has announced that this is one of the pages that he targets. Please keep an eye out for POV pushing by this user's sockpuppets. --LK (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph:

"The claim that one can not redress one form of discrimination by introducing another is a play on words that uses the same word "discrimination" to refer to two different things. Racial, ethinic or sex based dicrimination is based on unfounded, often irrational and deeply ingrained prejudice. Affirmative action is a response to a statistically observed inequity in representation, reproducibly demonstrated by social scientists in many societies with a history of discrimination"

Needs work. Lots of work.

They *are* the same thing, you can argue about whether the effects are worth the inherent discrimination, but it's the same damn thing. The author of this basically says "they're different because one is used to fix something bad". Will someone please tweak this paragraph or knock it out all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.97.108 (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. Next time, don't just remove it. Put your grievance here and the community can work to fix it.PokeHomsar (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Coate-Loury model

Does anyone here know anything about the Coate-Loury model of affirmative action?

Could you put it in?

Or Did I just miss it?

Paulasiri2 (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference 30 is a dead link. I'm sorry that I don't have time to do anything more constructive (like try to find the right link and actually fix it), but I thought I'd flag it up.

TimothyMills (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support/Opposition

Both of the main cites for these two sections are annoyingly bad and from-the-croner points of view. Perhaps these sections can better focus on the most common supports rather than a list of counters that two people who wrote books have made (which themselves aren't all that factual). Just because you can site that they have said something, doesn't make them a good source or even informational about this topic. Edits for these parts are direly needed.72.220.125.86 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Opposition

It seems odd to me that a section on "opposition" to affirmative action would not even mention that some people oppose affirmative action because they themselves are part of privileged groups and wish to preserve their privileges. Surely not all opponents of affirmative action are advocates of blind meritocracy worried about affirmative action accidentally "devaluing" talented individuals in the targeted groups. The way that section reads now effectively suggests that there is such a thing in this world as deliberate racist/sexist/religious/etc. oppression. - Jmabel | Talk 8:57 pm, January 13, 2009, Tuesday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC−5)

The addition by AlmondMitchell (Talk | Contribs) does not read like "opposition" to "affirmative action" at all, but rather in "support" of the policies, without references if not relying on personal opinion, and seems inappropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The extensive edit appears to be in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and is being reverted. 72.146.112.197 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, good catch. Thanks for reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is always going to be a difficult one when trying to acheive neutrality. We could say that people are in opposition to positive descrimination because they are in a majority group, but is this for racist reasons, or because they do not want there hard earned qualifications to be undermined my politics? Of course we could mention the opposite argument about minority groups liking positive descrimination because of the advantage it gives them. Both arguments arguably have underlying racism, and for the sake of creating a mutually non-offensive article about a current issue, i consider it best to have fewer arguments pinned to groups, and have more of an outline to the issues surrounding the idea. Wuku (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Positive discrimination

I want to state that "positive discrimination" has long been used in the UK and some other countries as the term for what is known in the U.S. as "affirmative action". Positive discrimination is not a derogatory term in the UK and doesn't carry the same negative connotations as "reverse discrimination" or "reverse racism", which critics of affirmative action use in the U.S. So positive discrimination should be a redirect to this article, not to reverse discrimination, which is currently just an article about the rhetoric used in the U.S. by certain critics of affirmative action.

Iota (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Wuku (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Positive action

As suggested before unanswered on this page, positive action is a philosphical term. There is no more suitable phrase for what positive action is. I want to link action to an article about a campaign group trying to abolish the recruitment of child-soldiers in the world. This thing about race and gender antics, that's great but it sure is trivial to those kids as I would imagine. Positive action is action taken towards a positive result not restricted to discrimination theory. That is what a bias POV is. Sorry for scolding and not trying to fix it right now but it would appear that would need discussion anyway as there is regular editing and discussion here since 2002 or there abouts. ~ R.T.G 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that although equality law is a positive action, positive action is not an equality law. Positive action is simply the opposite of negative action, equality law and Affirmative Action comes after that so positive action should not redirect to Affirmative Action. Obviously in the States there is an equality campaign titled Affirmative Action. In the UK there is one called Equality Law and they say that they are going to, "take some positive action", not, "take some Positive Action." (check the sources) ~ R.T.G 15:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Social equality

This article should be merged with Social Equality because it is about trying to make social equality and the term is only recognised in the Americas see also Affirmative action in the United States

Affirmative action → Social equality — This article is about Social equality. The captions "affirmative action" and "positive action" are not defined by social equality. Equality law should be described as an affirmative or positive action. Affirmative and positive actions should not be described as an equality law. The sources on this article do not describe equality laws as "Affirmative Action" and "Positive Action" but "affirmative action" and "positive action". This article has been written from the perspective that the only positive and affirmative actions available are related to equality laws which is not true. I've sized them up and don't think it should be too hard to merge this two articles so I won't mind doing it. ~ R.T.G 08:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - both the move and the merge. "affirmative action" as a concept is dstinct from Social Equality, and is of enough notability to warrant its own article. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose both the move and the merge. Affirmative action is a good topic in its own right, albeit not an easy article to keep NPOV. Andrewa (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose both proposals. They conflate two different concepts; and the move is from a well-known term to an obscure one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose social equality is a term that describes a state/situation; affirmative action decribes a process/measures taken. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

  • comment It's weird, when I search for "Equality" and "reform" at the same time, all the results I get are Irish, even thefreedictionary.com comes up with our Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I do not know what page you guys are on. We get more America on the TV than America does sometimes so if they are familiar with something we usually do too but what surprises you is the things that they are not familiar with. Positive and affirmative action is what you would describe charitable work or voluntary community service. Putting the racism t-shirt on that ranges from curious to unfair. Call a spade a spade and stop playing with the sources. Pretending that the name of equalty law is Affirmative Action would suit telling it to a six year old slowly. Any older than that, of any race, and you are just treating them like they are ingorant. Driving people who can't read into stupid. ~ R.T.G 17:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Social equality is the goal; the method called affirmative action in American is one means. This article is about the means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This one - Affirmative action in the United States is good. This one - Positive action is bad, there is no source for that. That is the important thing. ~ R.T.G 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That's why positive action is a redirect; some people do use the phrase in this sense, and they should get here. If you disagree, your remedy is not moving this page, which will still be accessible from positive action; it is to put positive action up for WP:RfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"Positive action" has no special connotation for racial equality in the UK. The term "racial equality" has that special relationship and has done for a long time. "Positive action" is a common turn of phrase in motivational speeches, that is all. Someone has read the phrase "positive action" in something about racial equality and thought "that's that Affirmative Action there!" If you check carefully you will soon find that talking about positive action in the UK makes people think about tidying up the neighbourhood or helping disabled kids or something not just racial equality. The BBC source[1] does title a section about racial equality in South America as Affirmative Action but if you read it, it is actually a criticism and says "US-style affirmative action". One of the UN sources[2] focuses on the term "Affirmative Action" directly as the racial equality campaign but begins by saying "“Affirmative action” is a term used frequently, but, unfortunately, not always with the same meaning." The UK Equality Bill[3] mentions taking "positive action" 3 times but the bill is longer than any Wikipedia article I have seen so it isn't at the core of the document. At one time they used to call it "equal opportunities" but even that has only one mention in the bill of today. So, if the UN report thinks that the term does not always have that meaning, the BBC thinks it is US-style and nobody else even uses it, are we on to something here? Doesn't this article belong at Social Equality with strong links to Affirmative action in the United States rather than at Affirmative action with no links, I repeat not even a single link, to social equality? ~ R.T.G 01:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
And note for Pm, deleting "positive action" was not what I had in mind. ~ R.T.G 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Then you should rephrase your complaint; I have no idea what it is you want, if it is not that, or why a move will achieve it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial concern was that the link positive action directed to an article on racial equality enforcement with claims that that was the term in the UK for the same. The more I look at it the more I learn but the initial concern remains and it seems that as a US specific term, two seperate articles are two many and without even a link to social equality there is definitely something amiss. Positive action should at least be directed to activism and suitable ties or better should be made between Affirmative Action and Social equality. ~ R.T.G 21:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And in posting that I think, why not Social equality measures? There are two Affirmative Action articles where it is a term in only one place albeit a big place. ~ R.T.G 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative Action unlawful in Europe?

I really do not think affirmative action is unlawful in Europe. The article has a lot of examples of Affirmative Action in Europe. I think the German school lottery is a good example of that. The school called Gymnasium used to pick it's students. It applied a number of criteria to select or deselect a candidate and some say not all of them had been fair... but I think it is safe to assume that most of the students, who were chosen by the Gymnasium had good grades in primary school. Now some of the slots are allocated by lottery. Everybody will be able to enter - regardless of his merit. So, I think this would be called "affirmative action" and it is definetly legal in Germany. Here is some information on that: [4] So may be affirmative action is just illegal when it comes to employement. Let me know how you do think about this.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Any actual proof, source for this ???

"Apartheid policies were aimed at advancing the lives of white South Africans, however under the Afrikaans-led National Party government not all whites were offered equal opportunities. There was a job reservation policy aimed at improving the lives of Afrikaans white South Africans, implemented in all the state-owned enterprises, including the Post Office, Transnet, SABC, Armscor, Eskom & Iscor, as well as state departments."

Could some one please SOURCE this !??? What job reservation policy was there ??? In what law ??? These jobs were the low middle-class jobs, most English speakers had better job, and filtering was done mostly in enforcing bilingualism (Afrikaners speak English, English speakers did not fancy so much Afrikaans, still don't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.217.180 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Lede section

I reverted to the old lede. The new version was factually incorrect, it was made up of WP:OR, and offered unsourced legal advice. Maybe with some WP:RS we can work out an improved middle ground.

Factual inaccuracies:

  • "historical under-representation of disadvantaged groups" Not so. Affirmative action in the U.S. includes veteran status; are military veterans a disadvantaged group? Also, affirmative action is based on current situations, not limited to "historical" wrongs.
  • "favouring members of over-represented groups"? Probably a typo, but isn't that precisely the opposite of affirmative action?

Original research:

  • Perhaps the E.U. distinguishes between "affirmative action" and "positive action", but the description of positive action ("whereby an under-represented group may be favoured in employment policies so long as there is no difference in merit between the candidates") is considered part of affirmative action in the U.S.
  • "Affirmative action, or positive discrimination, by contrast may involve disregarding merit." See above.

Legal advice:

  • "Affirmative action in this sense is lawful in the United States, but is unlawful in the European Union."

The article probably should have a section about the relationship in the E.U. of "affirmative action" and "positive action", and if reliable sources discuss it, the section should include a statement about their legality—but an unsourced statement in the lede that affirmative action is illegal in the E.U. is a bit much. (The sentence was "sourced" to a redlink article about a court case.)

There's no question this article needs a lot of work. Let's work together on something that's suitable to everybody. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs lots of work. My understanding of Affirmative Action in the U.S. is that it was originally intended to lift Black Americans up and out of the cycle of poverty and poor schools, etc., which 200 years of discrimination had imposed. The idea was to give Black workers and students a leg up. It has later come to include others such as women and veterans. But they weren't in the mix in the beginning. Does anybody else have this same understanding? If so, we could maybe find reliable sources and this could be in the lead.Malke2010 22:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PSNI (Northern Ireland)

The article somewhat incorrectly states that "The 1998 Good Friday Agreement required that the Police Service of Northern Ireland recruit equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants in order to eliminate the service's perceived [by whom?] bias towards Protestants." In fact the Police are required to Roman Catholics and non-Catholics (Including Protestants and those of other/no religion) on a 50:50 basis. There are not required to recruit Protestants at all ! 86.112.46.244 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is dreadful

I can't believe an article on a major topic like this is so bad... wow. It reads like a mediocre high school essay, as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. Somebody ought to fix it... not me though, sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.83.173 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As I am not American and do not understand all the US cultural implications of the term "Affirmative Action" I am unwilling to take on the widespread editing it requires. But currently it is a disgrace, and damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. Oak (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, the article is pretty poor at the moment. It is now tagged as needing expert attention. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Under Implementation Worldwide, there is a template stating that this material should not be in the form of a list, which is a normal wiki style guideline. However, for this particular section where the approaches of various countries are being discussed, I think the list format might actually be the best approach. If Americans -- even -- aren't sure what "Affirmative Action" is, how can anyone cover implementation of the concept (a concept no one can define) in other countries? Hence, a list of countries and their approaches is probably the best (or least-worst) way of formatting this section. Canadian2006 (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i think this is a horrible rule of this school, cause we are in XI century, and i can't understand how this policy can be able in the word. About that separed the people for the race —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.210.185 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Australian Affirmative Action Policy

Affirmative action policies exist in Australia (similar to New Zealand) for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders - [1]. Various scholarships are offered in Universities specifically for indigenous students[2].Whatnick (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC) {{editsemiprotected}}Whatnick (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Bejinhan talks 09:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ >http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/index.html
  2. ^ http://www.unisa.edu.au/scholarship/commonwealth/indigenous.asp

Social Equality Policies

Suggestion to change article title

As far as I can determine Affirmative Action in the US, and Positive Discrimination in the UK are both terms commonly used in reliable sources (correctly or not) to refer to the types of policy mentioned in this article. There is no international common term. With that in mind, and as this article is about international policies intended to promote social equality, is it possible that the article be re-titled to the more neutral Social Equality Policies which is also commonly used, but in a broader context. Both Affirmative Action and Positive Discrimination can then be named within the article as referring to groups of such policies in the US and UK respectively. Ziggysdaydream (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Non-discrimination Policies" is also commonly used by reliable sources in the broader context. Ziggysdaydream (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. Seeing that "affirmative action" is the US term, it seems a little odd to have affirmative action alongside affirmative action in the United States. "Affirmative action" is of course a propaganda term, coined as an euphemism. I suspect that "affirmative action" has a more benign ring to it to US American ears than "government-imposed discrimination". --dab (𒁳) 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes change it to something more appropriate rather than Americanisation. Social equality legislation. Social equality law. Or something. Etc. It is the article Social equality which suffers. ~ R.T.G 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference for unsourced content in section on France

In Europe -> France section : the line : "Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po)" could be completed by the following reference : http://admissions.sciences-po.fr/fr/college-cep which describes on one of the french Science Po university web pages how the specific affirmative action "convention éducation prioritaire"/priority education convention has been thougt and set up. The reference is in French language. Besides, I didn't find where, exactly this request had to be posted. I put it here in the discussion page. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregui To (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

US

Be honest. Is Affirmative Action a term used outside the US without reference to the US? Not very often is it? ~ R.T.G 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lemme guess: you're gonna edit-war this baby into your direction as well? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Into my direction? There should be a serious article called something like Social equality measures or something but just definitely we shouldn't be led to beleive that diversity is the only thing for what we can see a positive action. I don't mean to make little of it. I mean, there must be some source or something with a name rather than a tag title. The tag title is fine but without a name in language I just won't get to sleep will I! ~ R.T.G 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is! The term "Affirmative Action" is use in nations outside the US, when referring to their own policies which favours one race, gender or economic group over others. Sheesh! Next somebody will say that phrase "The President" refers only to the leader of the US Perneseblue (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The term is used in Germany. We use the english term "affirmative action" or call it "Quotensystem" ("quota system") or "Sozialquote" (social quote).--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
If any sex is preferred over the other, considering same level of qualifications (like in Germany), that's sexism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.22.2.204 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order 10925 v Executive Order 11246

In the first part of the article it states: "In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required federal contractors to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin."

Apologies if I have misunderstood, but wasn't this already established by JFK's executive order 10925?

"The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." 152.78.209.122 (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)shaunk

I think Kennedy's order 10925 forbid discrimination and Johnson's 11246 went further and required "affirmative action" to increase minority representation, I believe. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Positive Discrimination in the UK

"Matching procedures in other countries are also known as reservation in India, positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and employment equity in Canada".

"Positive discrimination" is not a "matching procedure" in the sense indicated by this and the preceding line. Those "procedures" listed are mandated by the respective governments. Positive discrimination i.e. preferential selection that is not is not based mainly on merit, is not mandated by the UK government and is in fact illegal in the UK, as the article later states.

The introduction gives the impression that positive discrimination is the UK equivalent of affirmative action which is misleading and incorrect. Technically there is no UK equivalent. Discrimination (positive or not) is illegal in the UK. Positive action (selection on merit while also considering under-represented groups) is advocated by UK legislation and has been since The Race Relations Act 1976, but positive discrimination is not. Ziggysdaydream (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I thik there is some confusion in this article because both Affirmative Action and positive Discrimination have become synonymous in the US and UK respectively with preferential selection, while those terms also refer a groups of policies intended to promote social equality, of which preferential selection is one. I think the article needs to make the distinction for the sake of clarity.Ziggysdaydream (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


How about this: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DiscriminationAtWork/DG_10026667

Scroll down to: What is 'positive action'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.55.177 (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I draw your attention to this portion of the text you refer to. "This does not mean that employers can discriminate in favour of the members of the group when it comes to choosing people to do the work or fill the posts, that is unlawful discrimination. Positive action is not the same as 'positive discrimination', which is where members of a particular racial group are treated more favourably just because they come from that racial group. Positive discrimination is unlawful."
This clearly states that positive action is not considered the same as positive discrimination, which is in fact illegal in the United Kingdom.Ziggysdaydream (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

where's Israel?

doesn't it owe most of it population in affirmative action? --Leladax (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source that argues that most of Israel's population is due to affirmative action? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you cite 1 that says it doesn't owe at least some? Wikipedia has turned into a soapbox of lawyer-wannabies. --Leladax (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
According to this source Israel has affirmative Action for ethiopian immigrants. I don't know if they also have it for palestinians.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Cite one that says it doesn't??? Can you cite a source that says Mexico is not located on the South Pole? If not, I guess we'll have to include that in wikipedia... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Example of Israeli affirmative action: Nefesh B'Nefesh. This is not any small organization, their chairman is the deputy foreign Minister. --Leladax (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Praytell, how is that affirmative action? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It targets only the 'higher' jews of the US and UK (if you're lucky Canada). In fact it's funny it gets into that; the very fact they discriminate requiring Jews is enough. --Leladax (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember hearing that a university in Haifa has affirmative action -- spots are reseved for arabs. I'll try and find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.137.103 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Polls

The poll section only contained one outdated poll conducted in the US (which I made the mistake of deleting but now realize that that was dumb). I have found more recent ones, but can't find anything outside of the US. Any suggestions as to how we can make this section more global?Mpgviolist (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

editors should work on topics they know--the idea of stretching entries to cover other countries in the name of globalization leads to superficiality, I think.Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok; I found one from Canada but beyond that yes I think I agree now as it means less work for me.Mpgviolist (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpgviolist (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article is suffering from a bad case of Weasel words. Phrases like "some argue that" need a proper citation. There are too many weasel worded phrases in the article, and maybe it should be tagged to point this out. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In doing a quick read-through, I mostly saw stuff like "some countries" "many universities" etc; are those the examples you're referring to, or do you have any specific ones? Perhaps ones that use them in lieu of attribution Zujua (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "some argue that" does not appear in this well-referenced article. I am removing the tag. If you feel that there is still a "bad case" of whatever, then kindly detail your specific concerns so that they can be addressed rather than making a blanket statement. Amead (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

UK-only lead

The lead talks about the United Kingdom only. The United States is not talked about in the lead. I came to read this article, because I wanted to know about affirmative action in the United States. I was surprised that the lead did not mention it and I thought that the publication where affirmative action was mentioned had their facts wrong... --Hartz (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize lead (as of 2013 Apr 7)

The current description of affirmative action is inadequate. I don't think a definition from a 1960s US executive order covers all the interpretations of affirmative action in the world past or present. Are there any objections to replacing the 1960s US definition?

Second, "positive action" should be added as a synonym, since positive action refers to parts of affirmative action that "positive discrimination" doesn't refer to. (For example, positive discrimination in the UK seems to be more similar to "reverse discrimination" in the US, which isn't exactly affirmative action in the US sense) However, if positive action and discrimination aren't commonly used outside the UK, neither term should be in the lead. –Temporal User (Talk) 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete Definition of "Under-Represented Group"

I think the 1st sentence needs to be changed, to immediately include the balancing information left-off by the phrase "under-represented group" which by definition means that the discriminating standards are absolutely NOT based on individual merits. It's either or, and it is biased in favor of the use of Affirmative Action Policies to fail to include what this term means in context: Better qualified individuals will be discriminated against in order to "positively discriminate" in favor of another individual based on something other than individual merit, such as color, gender, sexual orientation, etc... I also think a section on "reverse racism" is appropriate, as well as a section describing how affirmative action programs actually promote racism (and other "-ism's) by artificially promoting people to positions they have not earned.Jonny Quick (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. If you can find actual reliable sources that say as much, provide them; so far, that's not happened, in all the years this article has existed. Your personal opinions and gripes have no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
well, the poster was just asking for a clarification in the wording of the lede, this hardly warrants a reply of "WP:RS or out". The article is already well aware that "positive discrimination" consists of a political decision of designating certain groups which are to be privileged based on their membership in said group. That's the very definition of the thing. The question of describing the political process which leads to the designation of some features as defining "minority groups" is perfectly valid. This isn't, by design, an objective or neutral process, it is a question of political decision. Jonny Quick was just giving an accurate summary of the procedure, positive discrimination does indeed mean, by design, that in the case of two equally qualified candidates, the one from the designated "minority group" should be given precedence. This is what the topic is all about.
The article's job is to give a neutral description of these processes in the various countries where this has been an issue. It is indeed not for us to apply any judgement of value to these decisions. We can give a balanced account of secondary literature which may contain such value judgements, but we will have to attribute them. It would be an improvement to summarize in the lead which definitions of "minority" groups (they are not necessarily minorities, as "gender" has also been among the criteria, where "gender" is of course to be read as "female") have typically been selected for positive discrimination. --dab (𒁳) 08:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If Jonny's ideological agenda had not been so blatant ("reverse racism", "artificially promoting people to positions they have not earned" [because of course affirmative action never benefits competent candidates, just minorities who by definition are not worthy]), I would have taken him more seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sweden

"Special treatments of certain groups are commonplace in Sweden. Leveraging of the opportunities of these groups is encouraged by the state. One example is the police, who give women and people from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds concessions when it comes to testing for entrance to the police academy.[citation needed]" This is totally wrong, it is the same test for both men and women, http://www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/article14460715.ab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.57.19 (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action decided

Just wanted to let people here know that Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was decided on and this article should probably be updated to reflect that. 162.17.205.153 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

France

"However, highly ranked French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain amount of students from impoverished families.[38]" Nowhere the linked article says or suggest that. Actually social policies for students work the other way around. Student from low-income families get grants. Also the article could expand a little bit on the philosophical reasons of the opposition to race and sex based discriminations (principles of equality, strong social policies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.69.83 (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Affirmative action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

What is the rationale for deleting the link to race and intelligence in the "see also" section? It is a highly relevant topic and I'm surprised that it isn't mentioned in this article. Sombe19 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Explain yourself. The observed racial differences in IQ are the reason affirmative action was created in the first place. Also, the race differences in IQ explain the overachievement or underachievement of certain groups. Sombe19 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
No they're not. And I'm really done discussing things with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer to me. Sombe19 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not relevant because, the literature on Affirmative action does not intersect significantly with the literature on R&I. To add it is tendentious and non neutral as it implies that the widely rejected argument of the Bell curve would be a valid argument against Affirmative action policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Affirmative action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Non Neutral Introduction

The very first paragraph of this article is biased as it uses phrases such as "presumed benefit" and "perceived disadvantage" when referring to the benefits of affirmative action and its need. Such phrases must not be part of the introduction, which should only provide a widely accepted (both by supporters and opponents) definition of what affirmative action is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbir Thomas (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition is wrong. "perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture" is not part of the definition. There are many reasons for 'affirmative action', from addressing genuine discrimination (i.e. in the USA) to favouring a political elite (i.e. Malaysia).Royalcourtier (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
To believe that any group currently faces disadvantages without any of these disadvantages being artificially and synthetically created by law or religion is to believe in inherent disadvantages. This is by nature a bigoted or racist or sexist view that should not be tolerated by any egalitarian thinking group. Indeed, either "perceived" is the correct terminology despite any sources from any clearly biased material or whoever is reverting edits despite good faith or bad faith is either a racist or a sexist. These disadvantages only exist in the minds of bigots, whether soft bigots or full blown bigots advocating supremacy. I am done arguing vicariously through moderators with people who obviously either support supremacist ideologies or have inferiority complexes. If this is who Wikipedia supports, then be doomed onto the wrong side of history. You only need to Google the names editing this article to see the truth yourself.
120.149.198.193 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If you want to know about me, you can read everything you need to know at User:Malik Shabazz. If you cannot read the four sources that support the opening sentence to the article, perhaps one of your friends can read them to you. They simply don't support the drivel you are trying to add. We don't add material based on what we think, we add it based on what reliable sources say. See WP:Verifiability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Affirmative action. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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) 02:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Problem.

I am not in favor of Affirmative Action, but this article seems to be biased in my opinion. Would someone please add the positives of affirmative action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.61.197 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added an "unbalanced" tag to the article based on your concerns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to the topic of Affirmative Action, there really are no logical or fact-based evidence of any benefits of the system. According to most surveys, as much as 86% of all African Americans are opposed to Affirmative Action as it implies they cannot get into college based on their own merit. Martin Luther King Jr. preached that he would like to live in a world where his children would be judged exclusively on the content of their character and never on the color of their skin. Affirmative Action is the opposite of what Martin Luther King Jr. intended!PokeHomsar (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
76% of the population knows that 81% of all statistics are made up. Please provide a source for your analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What positives need to be added in order to make the article less biased? Morphdog (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical Modeling

Affirmative action can be modeled thusly: ∀ α/β(o)>1, αη/βη(o)=1. Where α(o) is the opportunity of group α, and β(o) is the opportunity of group β; αη(m) is the relation defining the merit of term αη, βη(m) is the relation defining the merit of term βη; η is a position index referring to term η in a given set (αη, βη indicate the ηth terms of sets α, β respectively; person αη ∈ α, person βη ∈ β).

β = {β1,β2,β3,β4,...,βη,...}

α = {α1,α2,α3,α4,...,αη,...}

Forcing αη(o) to be the same as βη(o) regardless of the values of αη(m),βη(m) is just as bad as forcing βη(o) to be the same as αη(o) regardless of the values of βη(m),αη(m), so affirmative action is equally maledicting to the opportunity of the individual as the bigotry that it seeks to combat.

  • I don't really understand what this argument means or how it supports your position that this article is not neutral. Can you explain what is biased about this article now, in your opinion, and (in plain English) how this can be addressed? Everymorning (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Please get rid of the mathematical jargon, and explain this in a way that an average person can understand. Additionally, you're going to need actual citations (WP:NOR) to prove your model's reasoning correct. Morphdog (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs "Proponents" section

Right now, there is an "Opponents" section and a "Controversy" section, both of which have a negative connotation toward the subject. A more balanced approach would be to have a "Proponents" section (or some other name if more appropriate) explaining what affirmative action is in neutral terms and then an "Opponents" or "Controversy" section to discuss the opposition to it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is outstandingly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.6.172 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the introduction, which should contain no opinion whatsoever. The discussion of "preferential treatment" is blatantly biased, as I noted in my last edit. --Docmcconl (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about just renaming the "Opponents" section "Proponents" since it, like everything else in this article, is written by proponents?? When you are afraid of discussion, try to control what is said so that your POV is the most lucid. This article is a piece of sales literature. How about finding someone who thinks it is a bad idea and letting them write the "Opposition" section instead of setting up "staw men"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerasmus (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not everything on wikipedia can be fixed by discussion. Certain topics are affixed in the biased position. This might be one of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.116.195 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

NPOV: Intro paragraph obscures the difference between group privilege and individual privilege

The intro paragraph introduces Affirmative Action as a selection process based on group membership, but then continues with inaccurate language that makes it sound like the relevant properties (suffering, being disadvantaged) apply to the individual group members who benefit from Affirmative Action:

"favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer or have suffered from discrimination [...]. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons [...]."

This is of course not true, in the general case: The relevant properties are merely statistical group averages, and Affirmative Action doesn't assess to what extent they apply to any given individual group member (nor could it, as that would be impractical).

That is, in fact, one of the main moral criticisms of AA. I'm not saying that this criticism should be articulated in the intro paragraph, but it seems to me that the inaccurate language used right now is designed to deliberately obfuscate the matter and prevent readers from arriving at that criticism by themselves, and thus presents an NPOV concern.

I suggest rewriting that part of the paragraph as follows:

"favoring members of a disadvantaged group that suffers or has suffered from discrimination [...]. Often, these groups are disadvantaged for historical reasons [...]."

Thoughts? --WilliamStryker (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Affirmative action. 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) 17:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Affirmative action can be broader than just race or gender.

Affirmative action refers to giving preferential treatment to any specifically targeted group of people, ie. lower class, women, a racial grouping. It can be broader than just race. If a scholarship is given to people in the lower class, that is an act of affirmative action for poor people. If an employer gives a job to people with freckles, that is affirmative action for people with freckles. The point is, the separation properties can be anything and it will still be affirmative action.

~Nate Nuzum

France

"However, highly ranked French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain amount of students from impoverished families.[38]" Nowhere the linked article says or suggest that. Actually social policies for students work the other way around. Student from low-income families get grants. Also the article could expand a little bit on the philosophical reasons of the opposition to race and sex based discriminations (principles of equality, strong social policies).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affirmative action. 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) 00:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

South Africa

The section on South Africa is full of speculation and rumour rather than fact. For instance there was no policy that "as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned companies. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people". That is an entirely fanciful claim.

@Royalcourtier:
If you feel some claims are inaccurate feel free to tag statements and/or sections which you find egregious using the cleanup templates.
Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy
Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First Sentence Wording

I don't believe the use of the verb "protect" in first sentence is supported by the references 1, 2, 3, and 4. I would suggest changing the first sentence to read "Affirmative action, also known as reservation in India and Nepal, positive action in the UK, and employment equity (in a narrower context) in Canada and South Africa, is the policy of promoting the education and employment of members of groups that are known to have previously suffered from discrimination." Basically, I think the verb "promote" is true to the reliable sources, whereas "protect" is not. For comparison, here is the lead sentence on Britannica: "Affirmative action is an active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for members of minority groups and for women." They choose the verb "improve". Reference # 4 in this article chooses the verb "increase". I think any of these verbs would be much truer to the reliable sources than "protect". I cannot find any support for using the verb "protect" in the listed references. I would also note that references 1 and 2 use the verb "favor", which would be fine with me personally, but I think others would find it too controversial. So as a compromise, I think promote, increase, or improve are best. If there are no objections within a few days, and in order to be bold (as Wikipedia recommends), I will go ahead and make the change to "promote". --Westwind273 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed changes. I think what the sentence says now is wrong. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, I have been bold and made the change. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

postitive discrimination

What is the relation between affirmative action and positive discrimination? Why is this relation not addressed in this article? 194.11.242.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Depending on the location, "positive discrimination" may be a phrase with a specific legal meaning or an alternate way of referring to affirmative action. On Wikipedia, positive discrimination redirects readers to this page, where the phrase only appears in the footnotes. I agree with you that somebody with better knowledge of the subject, or an interest in researching it, should probably add at least a paragraph about the phrase. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 20:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a terrible article

this article needss a lot of work fix it felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.133.243 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Please explain. Just saying that "an article needs a lot of work" doesn't help anyone. Not trying to be rude or anything though, it's just that an explanation of what can be done to make the article better would be useful. Morphdog (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you believ this article should be fixed, please describe how it should be fixed. Just saying that an article needs fixing, is too vague to be useful.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Improving Signal Phrases

This article is well organized and contains a lot of good citations. It may be helpful to signal phrase more in order to maintain a neutral tone as it can come across biased against affirmative action. Additionally, signal phrasing would indicate who is credited for the opinions stated. Mkhurley19 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Affirmative_action/Archive_3&oldid=1146448261"