This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brown v. Board of Education article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Brown v. Board of Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Failing to mention Judge Huxman's "findings of fact" at the appeals district level is a serious omission. Without that, things would quite likely have gone the other way at the Supreme Court. These findings included the detrimental effect of a segregated education upon the children. This is arguably the linchpin on which the Supreme Court decision was made.
This brief newspaper account mentions it. Other sources provide the full set of "findings of fact", explaining why the appeals court had to rule the way it did, while handing this case to the Supreme Court with the facts that would justify overturning Plessey v. Ferguson. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this in the article.
Adding this link to view Huxman's opinion of the Tenth Circuit Court case. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have previously made reference to the "findings of fact" issued by presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman in the lower court, but there have been disparaging statements made about some of the sources from which this might be obtained (e.g. the "Famous Trials" website). I therefore provide this reference:
Huxman, Walter A. (Autumn 1952). "The Topeka, Kansas Case Decision". Journal of Negro Education. 21 (4): 522–527. JSTOR 2293822.
As per the above source, Finding of Fact IV states:
There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respect to those in the white schools.
This finding of fact by the lower court, in conjunction with Finding of Fact VIII, effectively precluded a finding in favor of Brown that would have allowed the doctrine of separate but equal to stand. Fabrickator ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
My impression is that including this finding of fact did not represent a compromise, but something the court had believed would be likely to be relevant to the disposition of the case. Hopefully this would have been reworded prior to actual publication. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)... their final judgment of law did not incorporate the substantial testimony of social science evidence that the LDF lawyers presented about the psychological effect of racial prejudice and segregation. Perhaps as a compromise, the judges attached nine findings of fact to their decision ...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2007. The biggest problem is the massive amount of unsourced material in the article that, if not taken care, will result in the article's delisting. Hopefully someone can work on this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The 00:55 12 January 2006 edit adds a claim that the plaintiffs asserted that the "separate but equal" system "perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment" for black Americans.
This claim is not consistent with the statements made at trial by the plaintiffs' attorneys, and Huxman confirmed the position of the plaintiffs in the "Findings of Fact" section of the District Court ruling. Specifically, Finding Number 4 stated:
There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respects to those in white schools.
It is well-recognized that Huxman was extremely sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but he understood he had no authority to simply overrule Plessy and doing so would be unlikely to have the desired outcome. Fabrickator ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator ( talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)The plaintiffs in Topeka did not charge that the schools' facilities their children attended were inferior, but that segregation itself did psychological and educational damage to black children forced to attend schools isolated from the other children in the community.
@ White whirlwind: In your edits of 16 October 2023, you pointed out the determination of the detrimental effect of segregation in public schools. However, this is stated without mentioning that this finding of factwas actually part of the opinion in the 1951 trial, presided over by Walter Huxman (as mentioned in Brown v. Board of Education#District court opinion). Fabrickator ( talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dates it started dec 1952 and ended may 1954 https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. and https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. Ocueye ( talk) 16:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
On other SCOTUS decision articles, it usually uses "is" to describe currently active decisions, and "was" to describe overruled decisions. Why is this one saying "was," when Brown v. Board of Education is still active and was never overruled? DocZach ( talk) 18:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brown v. Board of Education article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
Brown v. Board of Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Failing to mention Judge Huxman's "findings of fact" at the appeals district level is a serious omission. Without that, things would quite likely have gone the other way at the Supreme Court. These findings included the detrimental effect of a segregated education upon the children. This is arguably the linchpin on which the Supreme Court decision was made.
This brief newspaper account mentions it. Other sources provide the full set of "findings of fact", explaining why the appeals court had to rule the way it did, while handing this case to the Supreme Court with the facts that would justify overturning Plessey v. Ferguson. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this in the article.
Adding this link to view Huxman's opinion of the Tenth Circuit Court case. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have previously made reference to the "findings of fact" issued by presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman in the lower court, but there have been disparaging statements made about some of the sources from which this might be obtained (e.g. the "Famous Trials" website). I therefore provide this reference:
Huxman, Walter A. (Autumn 1952). "The Topeka, Kansas Case Decision". Journal of Negro Education. 21 (4): 522–527. JSTOR 2293822.
As per the above source, Finding of Fact IV states:
There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respect to those in the white schools.
This finding of fact by the lower court, in conjunction with Finding of Fact VIII, effectively precluded a finding in favor of Brown that would have allowed the doctrine of separate but equal to stand. Fabrickator ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
My impression is that including this finding of fact did not represent a compromise, but something the court had believed would be likely to be relevant to the disposition of the case. Hopefully this would have been reworded prior to actual publication. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)... their final judgment of law did not incorporate the substantial testimony of social science evidence that the LDF lawyers presented about the psychological effect of racial prejudice and segregation. Perhaps as a compromise, the judges attached nine findings of fact to their decision ...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A GA from 2007. The biggest problem is the massive amount of unsourced material in the article that, if not taken care, will result in the article's delisting. Hopefully someone can work on this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The 00:55 12 January 2006 edit adds a claim that the plaintiffs asserted that the "separate but equal" system "perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment" for black Americans.
This claim is not consistent with the statements made at trial by the plaintiffs' attorneys, and Huxman confirmed the position of the plaintiffs in the "Findings of Fact" section of the District Court ruling. Specifically, Finding Number 4 stated:
There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respects to those in white schools.
It is well-recognized that Huxman was extremely sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but he understood he had no authority to simply overrule Plessy and doing so would be unlikely to have the desired outcome. Fabrickator ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Fabrickator ( talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)The plaintiffs in Topeka did not charge that the schools' facilities their children attended were inferior, but that segregation itself did psychological and educational damage to black children forced to attend schools isolated from the other children in the community.
@ White whirlwind: In your edits of 16 October 2023, you pointed out the determination of the detrimental effect of segregation in public schools. However, this is stated without mentioning that this finding of factwas actually part of the opinion in the 1951 trial, presided over by Walter Huxman (as mentioned in Brown v. Board of Education#District court opinion). Fabrickator ( talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
dates it started dec 1952 and ended may 1954 https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. and https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. Ocueye ( talk) 16:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
On other SCOTUS decision articles, it usually uses "is" to describe currently active decisions, and "was" to describe overruled decisions. Why is this one saying "was," when Brown v. Board of Education is still active and was never overruled? DocZach ( talk) 18:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)