Talk:Plessy v. Ferguson

message: Why is the French version of this article longer than the English? They have the legal reasoning from the majority and dissent -- let's get somebody to write that in English!
Agreed -- we just covered this in my con law class; there's a heck of a lot more to say about it -- the "priveleges and immunities" v. "priveleges or immunities" clauses, equal protection clause, due process clause, and 13th & 14th Amendments each deserve at least a paragraph, not to mention at least a sentence or two on the distinction between substantive and procedural due process used by Brown. Harlan's dissent is legendary and should be given a lot more play. I'll give it what time I have soon, hopefully. Ryanluck 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and what exactly was that? Marshall was born 12 years after Plessy was decided --Unclebanglin (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French version longer than English?? 

message: This article notes that Plessy found the quality of accomodation in the whites-only and blacks-only first-class railroad cars to be equivalent, and therefore "separate but equal", but also notes that the same was not true of many other segregated facilities. The obvious question that raises then is: Did anyone challenge any other facilities, not on the mere fact of their being segregated, but specifically on the basis of their being unequal? If so, did any of those challenges reach the Supreme Court? This seems like it'd be useful information towards the end of the article. --Delirium 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  later cases 

message: Thirteenth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment???
Wasn't it the Fourteenth Amendment???? Equal Protection of the Laws instead of 
the abolishion of involuntary servitute that Plessy claimed to be violated.
My history textbooks says so and it makes more sense in my eyes.
Sources: 
Schmidt Shelly Bardes, American Governmant and Politics Today, 
2005-2006 Alternate Edition, page 153.
Dynmics of Democracy, 2004 Version, Third Edition, Peverill Squire and more,
page 147.
--Carsten79 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirteenth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment 

message: This article's seeing a lot of vandalism, how about some protection to stop this continuing to happen? Tphi 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This article identifies Homer Plessy but makes no mention of the other party to the case, John Howard Ferguson, who I believe was the Lousiana judge who made the initial ruling against Plessy. Could we get some information on his role? MK2 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too. Considering his name is also linked to both the case and the article, readers should know who John Ferguson was, along with Homer Plessy. darnold01 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferguson? 

message: Booker T. Washington delivered the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech in the year "prior" to Plessy v. Ferguson--September 18, 1895. The article states, "Along with Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise address, delivered the same year, which accepted black social isolation from white society, Plessy provided an impetus for further segregation laws."
The article should be edited to read, "Along with Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise address, delivered the previous year, which accepted black social isolation from white society, Plessy provided an impetus for further segregation laws."
Thanks.
--Robert Lucas 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech 

message: Washington's Atlanta Compromise speech was a year earlier, in 1895, not the same year as Plessy, as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.243.216 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATLANTA COMPROMISE A YEAR EARLIER 

message: This article needs a section on the reaction to the case. What did whites do? Was there a black reaction? What about other reactions, ideological or physical. Piratejosh85 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction

message: The main page of this article says the Supreme Court decision was 8-1. This is incorrect, the decision was 7-1. Justice Harlan dissented; Justice Brewer didn't participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.197.250 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on main page 

message: Hi - this article need a lot of improvement - this content was just edited and looking at it its completely uncited - please feel free to find some WP:RS and replace it or find other citations and rewrite it with the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  lots of uncited claims 

message: "The case" has three unique references cited in the text, contrary to what one might think from the tag at the top of it. It is a bit lacking, but it still has citations. 69.146.97.94 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Tag 

message: Update the beginning of the Plessy v. Ferguson#Overview section by removing :File:Plessy marker.jpg which and adding :File:Homer Plessy Tomb Plaque New Orleans.jpg between the 1st and second paragraphs. Thank you in advance. 72.244.204.27 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you'd explain why you favor this image over the existing one. They both look okay to me. Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done for now: Since you haven't replied in 12 days, I'm closing this as a decline. The current image looks slightly better to me. You should feel free to reopen this request if you'd like to provide a rationale for your proposed change or if you want a third opinion. Rivertorch (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change an image 

message: " But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union", he wrote.[12]"
Yes it seems obvious where that sentence was going (perhaps only concluding "cannot"), but I'd like to see the way he did end it.  I'll try to look it up, but with me, that pretty much means, optimistically, maybe within a month, so if anyone agrees and has the time and energy, please do it.
GcT (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete sentence 

message: since this was a criminal action, would it not have been louisiana v. plessy at trial, rather than vice versa as cited in the text?Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plessy v. Louisiana?

message: The article on Plessy v. Ferguson in the Springer Encyclopedia of Cultural Psychology seems to incorporate uncited material from this article. The reason I believe the plagiarism is in the encyclopedia is that their article is dated to 2010 whereas the tet in question was already in this article in 2006. Also the same author seems to have lifted text from our article on African American Vernacula English into the Springer Encyclopedia article on "Ebonics".
It is these paragraphs:
:
:
:
: 
Just wanted to put this here on the talk so noone mistakenly thinks that the article is plagiarizing the Springer Encyclopedia when the reverse seems to be the case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Springer Encyclopedia of Cultural Psychology

message: The link not working so I remove the line.KevinFrom (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Earlier Cunningham had fought to restore white supremacy during Reconstruction.[11]" 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I didn't make the edit removing the South/North distinction, it was made by an IP but I reviewed and approved it as a pending change. I don't know why it is being restored as a "controversial edit". The wording is extremely sloppy, and this distinction has no "significance" - the US Supreme Court's rulings are the same in the North and South. A discussion of the historical effects should be in a section called "historical aftermath" or something. It also puts a lot of emphasis on the South and makes it sound like school segregation was a Northern concern, it was not, as we well know from Little Rock school segregation was also an issue in the South. This is just an explanation of why I approved the edit in the first place - I hope this was not some longstanding dispute, as I didn't see any indication of that from a brief check of the history. Seraphim System (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  the IP was misleading--the mention of segregated schools in Massachusetts and pennsylvania left out the dates--they were pre-civil war and pre 14th amendment, and the segregation no longer was legal there in 1890s. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: all the RS emphasized the distinction between de facto and de jure segregation. De facto means informal, private action, as in property deeds. De Jure means government imposed laws. Plessy only applies to de jure segregation, stating that it did not violate the 14th amendment.  Historically. de jure was by far the favorite tool for segregation in the South, but was rare in the north. In Brown the issue was not a state law but the actions of the  Board of Education of Topeka, which counts as de jure. Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  North/South 

message: Justia says argued April 18 decided May 18 in the syllabus but argued April 12 decided May 17 in the sidebar summary. That's the only source I see that lists May 17, so I likewise don't put weight on their April 12 claim. Court Listener and Google Scholar say argued April 13 whereas Cornell LII and Oyez say argued April 18. FindLaw has no argued-date. I could imagine 13 vs 18 is an OCR or manual reading/transcribing typo. But which should be listed in the infobox? Are there any contemporaneous newspaper articles or other refs? DMacks (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent date-argued information 

message: That the law required segregated railway cars should be revealed in the Introduction--instead of being described mysteriously as "the Louisiana law" as many as four times, and using other generalities. The casual reader will wonder.
My own remedy 
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plessy_v._Ferguson&oldid=905110340 
was peremptorily reverted by 
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:White_whirlwind, 
on the grounds that specifying the law was "too granular."  On the contrary, the casual reader will wish to know.  I invite a reply here by the reverter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cab.jones (talk • contribs) 05:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What law was it? 

message: I tried to correct several inaccuracies in the "Background: Trial" section, but  instructed me to come here to resolve the dispute first. Here are the inaccuracies.
1. Per the Law Library of Louisiana, Plessy's criminal trial was State v. Homer Adolph Plessy, not Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana. In American legal nomenclature, the defendant's name always comes second; Plessy was the defendant in the criminal case, so Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana cannot be correct.
2. I highly doubt the validity of the claim that "Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine" by Ferguson in 1892. While Justia's contextual "Facts" section says that "Plessy was convicted and fined [by Ferguson]," the site doesn't provide any citations for the claim, and the consensus of the historians I've found seems to be that Plessy was not actually convicted and fined until 1897. His lawyers petitioned Ferguson to rule on the constitutionality of the Separate Car Act, and when Ferguson determined the law to be constitutional, the legal team sought a writ of prohibition to halt the criminal trial (see Charles Lofgren's The Plessy Case p.42, Keith Weldon Medley's We As Freemen p.162-168, and Harvey Fireside's Separate and Unequal p. 121; Fireside explicitly says that Plessy's lawyers "appl[ied] for a writ of prohibition...to prevent the actual criminal trial of Plessy from going forward in Judge Ferguson's court" (121). After the SCOTUS decision, Plessy returned to Ferguson's court where he changed his plea to guilty and was fined (see Lofgren p. 208, Fireside p. 229, Medley p. 207-208, and Plessy's NYT obituary; Medley quotes directly from the 1897 record from the trial, showing that Plessy was sentenced and fined in 1897, not 1892).
3. Plessy did not "immediately" seek a writ of prohibition; his attorney petitioned for a writ of prohibition four days after Ferguson's ruling (per Lofgren p. 42).
If someone knows more about how the writ of prohibition worked in this case or has access to other sources that refute what I've laid out, please weigh in! 2601:410:200:41C0:DC5D:1D6A:C9BD:F425 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional note in regards to point #2: The New York Times saw fit to issue a correction on their "Overlooked No More" article about Plessy's life. The correction at the bottom of the article reads: "An earlier version of this obituary misstated how Judge John Howard Ferguson handled Plessy's case in criminal court. He chose not to hold a trial. He did not find Plessy guilty." If the NYT's fact checkers are correct, Plessy could not have been "convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine" in 1892 as Justia and the current version of this article state. 2601:410:200:41C0:DC5D:1D6A:C9BD:F425 (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed: Inaccuracies in "Trial" subsection 

message: I don't really feel comfortable making such a big change to the article myself, but as these are the cases that actually overruled Plessy regarding segregation on public transport, they should definitely get some coverage in this article. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browder v. Gayle and Keys v. Carolina Coach Co.