Talk:Racial segregation

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

the series should have a section on the caste system in india[edit]

there should be three examples of historically important apartheid systems: south africa, the united states and india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Structural issues with the article[edit]

I think the article tries to cover too broad a subject matter, it tries to explain what racial segregation is and then for a random selection of countries racial segregation within that country and its cause both historic and current. I did not read all the article but did read the UK section as that is where I live so I at least had some context for that. The references provided do not support the assertions that are made or at best are based heavily on subjective interpretation of the information in the reference articles.

I would suggest that the issues could be fixed by breaking the article into a series of articles, one that describes what racial segregation is and if possible tries to explain the causes of racial segregation and an article for each country covering the historic and current state regarding racial segregation in that country. That structure would provide more focused articles which should be easier for editing and peer review leading to less superficial assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Strange structure[edit]

I don't understand why we have one section from 10.000BC (segregation before civilization even existed, what?) up to the 1960s and another from the 70s up to the present day. Why this specific split? Wouldn't it be much better to go by convential historical eras? Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant Image and verbose caption[edit]

I removed this image and its long caption because it's not relevant to Hawaii, Brazil or China, where it takes up most the section. And it makes the U.S. centric focus worse generating an even more lopsided POV problem. Plus, the U.S. section is already really heavily illustrated. The image should not be here, so it should go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not illustrating the sub-sections you mention, it's illustrating the overall section "Historical cases from 10000 BC to 1960s:, to which it is most definitely pertinent. It should not be removed without a consensus to do so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
It has nothing to do even remotely with 10,000 BC and although closer to 1960 it's not even that. And it does look like it's illustrating the sections it is in. And it makes the POV problem of this article worse, especially with the verbose caption. We don't write articles in captions. This article is covering the world, not the U.S. (there is another article that covers the U.S. (Racial segregation in the United States) but even in that article the caption would be too much.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
We can address all these points by reducing the caption, moving the image into a more appropriate section, and thinning out images that duplicate the same point (there are two showing drinking fountains in the States, for example): [1]. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A racist poster attacking Radical Republican exponents of black suffrage, issued during the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial race
Thanks for doing that. I see you moved it. But, after looking at it again, I still see image relevance problems, which I would like to discuss. The image (at right) is political poster referencing 1866 local election suffrage in Pennsylvania. The U.S. section does not discuss suffrage (nor, for that matter does it discuss "Radical Republicans" or really much if any political-party history). Presumably, suffrage and racial segregation are not the same thing, you can deny suffrage with or without segregation (segregation is separation of facilities/housing, etc), whereas suffrage in the nineteenth century, was about how many men (seldom or more likely never women) are you going to give the vote to (based on property-ownership, literacy, or other factors). Unlike the drinking fountain, which does directly illustrate segregation, this local election poster does not (and it goes on a non-textbased tangent about political parties' history). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps something like File:Handbill with engraving by Jack Smith- Back To the Slave Quarters! Vote No On Segregation Feb. 29, 1916 (cropped).jpg could be used instead? DrKay (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Certainly better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


I would argue that the segregation here is ethnic rather than racial and should not be on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Colo(u)r bar redirect[edit]

Term never actually discussed on page. This means the redirect to here is inappropriate. CapnZapp (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)