Talk:Affirmative action/Archive 1

message: There's some content in political correctness that may be better off here.  For example:
:One central issue in the culture wars surrounding political correctness concerns what has come to be called affirmative action.  Critics point out that the racism inherent in any such benefit based on race is counter to modern values.  The defenders of affirmative action argue that affirmative action is necessary in order to redress problems of discrimination at a broader level.  Others suggest that affirmative action for one group (such as women) can in the same 'subtle' way be detrimental to less popular groups (such as black men), and that the strength of politically correct ideology tends to stifle an open and rational analysis of such situations in the popular media.  Clearly this is a subject of some debate.
I'm going to be doing a massive re-write of that page soon (it's having NPOV problems), so if you want to grab that material after I've done so, go back in the history to the 7 March 2004 version.
--zandperl 23:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Political correctness

message: The Purpose section ends with the following two paragraphs:
:In the US, affirmative action was originally designed by the civil rights movement to correct the history of oppression against all working and low-income people. Though the civil rights movement is associated with racial equality, the original scope of affirmative action was not limited to race. Conservative opponents of affirmative action successfully framed the policy in terms of race in order to inspire opposition in an important part of their constituency: low-income white men. By excluding a portion of those the policy was designed to help, conservative opposition was then able to criticize using the idea of reverse discrimination. This rhetoric would have made little impact if coming only from those in obviously advantaged social segment.
:The preceding argument appears insensible, however, in light of the overwhelming emphasis on race that took shape in the legislation.  It is folly to contend that opponents of affirmative action would craft affirmative action legislation at all, let alone legislation which would create preferential status for non-whites, thereby alienating and disenfranchising this "important constituency" of low-income white men.  An electorate which antagonizes its constituency does not get re-elected, and so the paragraph above does not stand to reason, and may be regarded as revisionist history with a communist/socialist agenda.
These are both POV, coming from opposite sides.  You don't correct POV with more POV.    I'll take a crack at fixing it.
- Korpios 22:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Purpose section 

message: Several people have been reverting the article back and forth.  Let's get the discussion over it here, rather than going around reverting it all the time.  Firstly, what are the reasons for the two versions, let's call them the RoseParks and the SamSpade version.  Clearly, the bunny rabbit article was unnecessary, and meant by Spleeman to illustrate that it is perfectly appropriate to delete large blocks of text if they do not belong in the article, suggesting that the SamSpade block (originally contributed anonymously, correct?) did not belong.  Allegations by SamSpade and myself are that it is strongly POV, uses weasel terms to thinly veil racist opinions, and isnot only biased but wholly an opinion piece, and is therefore impossible to simply NPOV the text, necessitating its removal.  I would appreciate comments on this before anyone goes around RVing again. -- Yitzhak 11:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV Wars 

message: Why don't we self-moderate a little better?  We could put contributions on the talk page, allow people to discuss them, and then gauge whether it's worth including or not.  It makes sense to work by consensus, since anyone can just go and RV, we should find something that all can agree to.  I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how acceptable/practical/effective this may be, but I think it's worth a shot.  But as long as the page is protected, we might as well give it a shot.  In this spirit, I submit something to add to Criticism (usual rules about not editing what someone has put into talk obviously don't apply, so feel free to edit as much as is beneficial):
:Your ideas are good. I made an edit to your text below to show my support for, and cooperation with your proposal. Sam [Spade] 21:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Moderated Contributions 

message: Okay, I've unprotected since there seems to be agreement that we can make progress again. Please edit carefully and continue to discuss any major changes before they happen. --Michael Snow 22:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: I've added a sentence on the UK situation which permits "positive action" but not "positive discrimination". This could be greatly expanded, based for instance on  and . --195.11.216.59 12:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Positive action" and "positive discrimination"

message: Folk repeatedly try to delete this sentence. Is it really that unbelievable? Can someone please tell me that I am not the only person living in the wikiworld that believes MLK and other civil rights leaders were concerned about class?
"Though affirmative action in the US is primarily associated with racial equality, the American civil rights movement originally intended it to correct the history of oppression against all working-class and low-income people."
--LegCircus 07:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
:I personally object to the statement "affirmative action in the US is primarily associated with racial equality". Affirmative action / positive discrimination are by definition state sponsored racism. Sam [Spade] 23:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See my new version of the sentence. Sam [Spade] 00:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I get specific objections to this sentence? 

message: Apologies in advance if my revert of User:Rep. Mark B. Cohen was done in haste. However, the edits really messed up the article. Since the user was brand new and not active on this page, I felt it was easier to revert than to try to fix all the errors. Fuzheado | Talk 09:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Revert 

message: A number of comments toward the end here are mine, and were not attributed.  I have no excuse other than ignorance of convention, and (of course) passionate views on the subject.  
Milesgl 20:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed Comments