Talk:Affirmative action in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peer Review Comments[edit]

I found that your expanded contribution really added to the holistic presentation of information on this page. I liked that you contrasted the addition of a “diversity” sub-section to the Arguments for affirmative action section with the addition of a “reverse discrimination” sub-section to the Arguments against affirmative action section. There were minimal grammatical errors in your added content and the formatting, readability, and neutrality of the content was in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Overall, your article could benefit from the addition of more images to add visual representation to the information and break up the text. Great job! I am looking forward to reading your final contribution. Aaie21 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to Edit the Affirmative Action in the United States Article[edit]

I am a student from Rice University in Houston, TX, and I am looking forward to extensively editing this page as part of a Wikipedia project for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. I will be revising any antiquated content on the article page and adding information to the sections such as "Hispanic-Americans" since these sections only contain ellipses as the content. The article offers many case studies for affirmative action, but lacks examples from more recent history. The controversy of affirmative action still rages on today and I believe that I can update the article in the event that some of the past cases have become obsolete or overwritten. In addition, the page gives a legal history of affirmative action cases in many states such as California and Washington, but I will make a section for the state of Texas. A banner on the page also states that there are currently citations that need verification and I would like to make sure that the page provides adequate references, but does not compromise its neutrality either. I would like to condense the information on the current page and add new sections/topics that help to create a more cohesive and encyclopedic entry on affirmative action in the United States.

I would like to revise the current page and bring it to a “Good Rating” by adding new information, restructuring the article, and condensing current information. In addition to my previously mentioned changes, I also propose to clearly define affirmative action for the article since it currently only has a wordy introductory sentence that does not clearly define the term. After creating a succinct introduction and condensing the "History" section, I will add a section on legal history of affirmative action in Texas. I also believe that the sections on the arguments for and against affirmative action could use more support. Under the "Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action" heading, I will provide information in the "Need to Counterbalance Historic Inequalities" sub-heading for Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic-Americans because these are existing sections, but nobody has inputted any information. I will also include a "Diversity" section as an argument for Affirmative Action. On the other hand, I plan to address the idea of "Reverse Discrimination" in the "Arguments Against Affirmative Action" section.

Finally, I will extensively revise the "Implementation in Universities" section. I will move all of the information under the current section into a heading called “Case Studies” since the content simply gives examples of affirmative action in universities. I will add four other sub-sections into the “Implementation in Universities” section: color blind, scholarships, faculty hiring, and diversity. I believe that these terms are all intimately related to affirmative action at the university level and I would like to see how each term plays a role in affirmative action.

The rest of my work will involve sifting through the current information already present on the article and reorganizing it. I will condense the sections and delete any uncited information. I would appreciate any input in deleting information that I believe is not pertinent to the article or does not contribute anything substantial to the page. Opinions from other authors on deleting Wikipedia information would be much appreciated. I believe that this article is missing a lot of key information and would be glad to work on this page. However, any advice on how to approach editing the page would be welcome since this only my second time working with a Wikipedia article. Please let me know any questions, concerns, or comments before I start on my project. Dwang41 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Dwang41. I really enjoyed your additions to the article. Your contributions gave a neutral point of view by citing arguments for and against. Moving forward, you could expand by adding information on HBCUs and HSIs. Finally, the history section could also include more current things.

Nnlpz (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender pay gap myth[edit]

US Department of Labor report, 2009. It examined over 50 peer-reviewed papers. Its conclusions are:

"However, despite these gains the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap. The purpose of this report is to identify the reasons that explain the wage gap in order to more fully inform policymakers and the public.


There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:

  • A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.
  • A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.
  • Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” work place policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Racist and sexist editors on this article[edit]

I can read many sentences with clear anti-white and especially a great disdain towards white males in this article. It would be great if we could agree to not praticipait in this scorning. Which had been viewed as racism and sexism if it were toward any other group. Olehal09 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus in academia?[edit]

Is there a consensus about wheter "minorites" and women actually faced discrimination by individuals in buisiness and shcools? I can agree that there has been discrimination with regards to the right to vote, and the Jimmy Crow laws in the Southern states, but after these were abolished. Women gained the right to vote in the 20s and the Jimmy Crow laws were judged as unconstetutional in the 60s, is there a consensus about this?

It really seems doubfull with regards to women at least. They are not a treath or can be feared. Olehal09 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite the lead, and especially if you want to delete sourced material, you must have reliable sources that support your proposed changes. Without them, there's really nothing to discuss. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
We both know that source don't meet wikipedia standards. It is not from an academic institution. I don't need relibable sources when the material is not sourced in the first place. Olehal09 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I only delited the source which are not from an academic institution and I made the text itself less bastant. Because there is no consensus about whether there have been discrimination by individuals in buisiness and schools towards women and minorities. Olehal09 (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that only sources from "academic institutions" are acceptable as reliable sources. It isn't true. I recommend you read WP:Identifying reliable sources to get a better idea of what we mean when we speak about reliable sources.
Your other point, that there is no consensus that women and minorities have been discriminated against, is too silly to address. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that source is necessary for this article anyway, neither is that a source. It's that organizations opinion, and every organizations/persons viewpoint is not a source. Acording to your link, scholarship, newspapers and the media and such establishments good to use. I don't see how that organization is accetable, especially when there are many academic sources on the subject.
The reliability of the source don't consern me that much, but it's more consensus opinion. How is it silly to ask if it's true women and minorities are being discriminated against? Is that one of your thought crimes?
Women have become equal to men without many prolbems. In the African American community, women are earning more than their male counterparts. White women are already close. If someone are discriminated against, can never be known. are boys discriminated in todays schools because they are graduating at a lower rate? Are english men in their 30s, being discriminated against since their women are earning more than them? Have men always been discriminated against because they die earlier? Because they are more often homeless? Are more often criminals? Or are discrimination only valid when it helps politicians to get votes? Olehal09 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative Action Executive Order 11246 of Sept. 24, 1965.[edit]

Johnson' admin changed law to no longer focus on African Americans because of ill treatment over the course of USA history but for all minorities as a DNC program to destroy Irish Scots never accepted in US Arabia. This needs to be a part of 'the' history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affirmative action in the United States. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article[edit]

In regards to the section of "Bias against Asians and whites", the research is reliable and appropriate. One of the statistics came from a book with multiple positive reviews. They're also peer reviewed so even if Thomas Espenshade is involved in both research, it's not just from one perspective. These statistics are eye opening and provides an objective analysis of how much bias happens.

The only issue I have is that this research is somewhat old. These numbers came from applications from around 1997. A lot has certainly changed since then. This inspires me to find more up-to-date research and statistics approaches. Has anything changed? Has the scales been balanced? Why or why not? OliverHGLAS (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)