Talk:Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States/Archive 1

Lede redaction
There were a number of confabulations, contradictions, which I removed making lede and body consistent. I think there probably were statutes in the colonies prohibiting, but the source given apparently documents the opposite phenomenon and the tables have dates for enactment of laws, not incident upon federal union but 20-50 years later as I note. If you have a source for the colonial laws then you can give a date and I think it would probably be earlier than "late 17th century". 72.228.189.184 (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

so lost
I find the whole article difficult to read and lacking useful information. For example "At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants."

Can someone educated in the topic please read through it try to make it more readable and informative.Mantion (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

On the practicality of the anti-miscegenation laws
While there can be no doubt that racism is part and parcel of the anti-miscegenation laws, are there not some practical ones also? I remember reading once that having 1/16 of a black ancestor would mean that while a person would look white, he/she could unexpectedly have a black baby. I read an article once years ago about a white woman who gave birth to a black baby, much to her surprise (you can just imagine the husband's reaction). I even read a story (in Parade magazine, of all places) about a woman who gave birth to twins, one white and one black. No one should resent people of different ethnicities getting married but shouldn't the practical aspects of the issue be included in the article? __209.179.50.199 (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141016171345/http://blogs.kqed.org:80/lowdown/2013/03/24/less-than-50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-put-an-end-to-race-based-marriage-bans/ to http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2013/03/24/less-than-50-years-ago-the-supreme-court-put-an-end-to-race-based-marriage-bans/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

False negative
It is more accurate to say that "A ban on interracial marriage was struck down for the first time in 1948, by the California Supreme Court, in the case of Perez v. Sharp (1948)", rather than the odd "Prior to the California Supreme Court's ruling in Perez v. Sharp (1948), no court in the United States had ever struck down a ban on interracial marriage".Royalcourtier (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Anti-miscegenation laws 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307022359/http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/82-3/p%20611%20Stein%20book%20pages.pdf to http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/82-3/p%20611%20Stein%20book%20pages.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070409160923/http://backintyme.com:80/essay050101.htm to http://www.backintyme.com/essay050101.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919021121/http://www.historycooperative.org:80/journals/jala/16.2/steiner.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/16.2/steiner.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606183727/http://www.csupomona.edu/~rrreese/INTEGRATION.HTML to http://www.csupomona.edu/~rrreese/INTEGRATION.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
@MShabazz reverted my edits twice (1, 2) for inserting the word "Jewish" into the sentence starting "Hannah Arendt, a Jewish emigre from Nazi Germany (...)". While her Jewish background is mentioned in the lead section of her BIO article and is sourced there (as well as in the sections devoted to her involvement in Jewish activism), I did not feel that it was necessary here to satisfy WP:RS; however, I will include this source as requested. As far as WP:NPOV, leaving out the fact that she was Jewish while referring to her as "an emigre from Nazi Germany" is a bigger issue than mentioning it. I fail to see what is not factual, not neutral or not relevant regarding this statement. Finally, WP:EGRS deals with categorization, and does not apply here. The fact that she herself was subject to Nuremberg Laws is very relevant to the subject of miscegenation, and it is not clear at all from a reference to her as an emigre from Nazi Germany. --Wiking (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You still have not explained why Arendt's religion is relevant, and the religion of the other people quoted in the article is not important enough to be mentioned. Until you can explain why, I shall continue to remove her religion as irrelevant. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think her religion is relevant at all. In Nazi Germany (and many other parts of the world), Jews were viewed as an ethnic group rather than a religious one. --Wiking (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews are both a religious and ethnic group. 2601:8C:4102:1210:25E5:7696:63A:13A5 (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)