Talk:Racial quota

Rewrite
This topic is seriously PoV biased. I agree with most of it...but its really biased against quotas.

I disagree. The article only describes one side of the issue. Many people consider Racial quotas "reverse racism". Both sides need to be discuessed in the article to have a NPOV. 130.49.142.155 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

131.109.147.121 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Lisette

The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, not 1984, and in the 1980's, President Reagan began trying to dismantle Affirmative Action. It's 20 years off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.117.200 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Old version
Something is fishy with the last complete rewrite of the article. I notice, some useful info is lost. Mikkalai 04:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Old verion:

Racial quotas in employment and education represent proportions of underrepresented racial minorities that a company or school seeks in hiring, promotion, admissions or graduation. When the total number of jobs or enrollment slots is fixed, this proportion may get translated to a specific number. In education, this kind of quota is also known as Numerus clausus.

Advocates of affirmative action programs vigorously deny that these programs involve "quotas", and regard the term "racial quotas" as particularly divisive in that it is assumed to be backed by the force of law to enable or disable certain linked programs or benefits based solely upon attainment of the one "quota" measure.

Opponents of quotas object that one group is favored at the expense of another whenever a quota is invoked, i.e. it displaces another individual from another group, presumably individuals that would normally be favored on another more objective metric, such as test scores or previous achievements. Advocates point out that the quotas may compensate for other groups being unfairly favored somehow.


 * Good point. I'm changing it back to the old version along with some changes, unless anyone objects. Magnum Opus

Choice of words, POV, everything!
What the hell is a "terrorist country"?! What kind of term is that?!? 209.226.121.182 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A country with links to terrorists, such as Iran. Skinnyweed 15:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I removed the picture because of it's obvious political bias intent. Read the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.194.192 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The picture is obviously representing a point of view, that's why it is in the criticism section. And that is fine. Please, read the rules carefully. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 16:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the image is not there to support a point of view, it is there to provide an example of criticism against these quotas, that is why the image is acceptable. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image is there to support a point of view and implies that those unable to pass the "vestibular", whatever that means, are less intelligent or clowns. It's unacceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. --Hfquei (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the image is unimportant to Wikipedia, as well as if you agree with it or not. That is a criticism section, and any media providing an example of criticism is welcome. The image is not there to suggest an idea, it is there to provide visual examples of the criticism, the content is free for everyone to agree or disagree, but not to hide, as you have been doing. It would be inappropriate to put it on top of the article, for example, but it is in the criticism section. See 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, for example. There is a pic of a demonstration there, even though being in favour or against it is a matter of personal opinion, beyond Wikipedia's mission to provide information and knowledge. I'm going to put the picture back, and if you insist on removing it, I will search for a third opinion. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not criticism, it's offensive.--Hfquei (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, please check WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOIMAGE. And please, stop removing the image until the issue is solved, the quality of the article doesn't need to be compromised because of your personal opinions and interpretations. Besides, your interpretation was totally incorrect, the image is not trying to imply that people who doesn't pass the vestibular are clowns or less intelligent. The image, the sign and the student are trying to imply that the government would be treating them as clowns by creating a racial quota system. Victão Lopes  I hear you... 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have added an image of a student protesting against racial quotas at the criticism section of this article, but Hfquei disagrees with the image, and considers it offensive and biased. As the discussion above proved useless to reach a consensus, I'm asking for a third opinion. In case the image is removed again before the end of this discussion, check for older revisions of the article to see if it is really offensive and/or biased. Thank you, Victão Lopes  I hear you... 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment via RfC. Displaying an image does not constitute support for the position contained therein. Notice all the pictures in the Ku Klux Klan article. The arguments for removing the image are patently ridiculous. Strad (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Offence isn't grounds for removal of information from Wikipedia. Race is a sensitive subject, so it would be difficult to find an image that doesn't offend or upset anybody. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep image. The image is fine, and on topic.  I see nothing offensive there (except for that clown nose, on purely aesthetic grounds). I recommend the following
 * find a second (balancing) image if you are worried that this image imposes a POV
 * negotiate to use a different image, if you can find one that's better - there's got to be half a million images that could be used for this page. -- Ludwigs 2  01:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * keep image. I think we can consider that consensus has been reached here. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the image. Better to find a balancing image. Sole Soul (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Name
I have moved the article from Racial quota to Racial quotas because the article itself starts off with the plural JianLi 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2
— Assignment last updated by Picklelaychip (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)