Talk:Racial segregation in the United Kingdom

Private members' clubs
"In 1969, Amarjit Shah, 27, a postal and telegraph worker, complained to the Conservative party leader, Ted Heath, that he was refused membership of a London Conservative Club. Shah was a party worker for East Ham Conservative party but resigned from the party after he refused entry due to his colour." Should there be "was" in the second sentence? That is: "Shah was a party worker for East Ham Conservative party but resigned from the party after he was refused entry due to his colour." Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"not a collection of newspaper clippings"
, could you give more context to this edit? Summary: "we should have content sourced properly, not a collection of newspaper clippings". I see that some citations to The Stage were incomplete, but every sentence has a source. What is your reasoning for removing this whole chunk of text and citations? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MartinPoulter, thanks--my problem here is that this content was a loose collection of factoids, and that's not how we should write encyclopedic articles. For such important content, which needs to be studied as a whole, one really needs academic sources that do provide an overview of the matter, not "person X was banned from a club". This is not accessible to me, but it's a one-page article (who knows how long) from a Belfast newspaper from 1974 that, judging from the wording in our article, is specific likely to a specific incident in 1974. If such a loophole existed, and if it matters (and I actually don't doubt it), there should be much better sourcing available since it concerns a nation-wide and pretty important piece of legislation, or the lack thereof. There seems to be some sourcing for that--here, for example, but I'm no expert on this content. If a more general and properly sourced overview of the topic is written, then some of the individual factoids might fit into that larger whole to exemplify the general issue, but right now the general issue is just not well-explained or grounded. BTW I find that this applies to other parts of the article as well, but one thing at a time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick and clear response. I agree that the specific reported instances need ultimately to be in the context of an overview based on academic and legal sources. I do question whether the text needs to be improved is sufficient rationale for deleting all of it as opposed to tagging the issue or posting a critique on Talk as you've now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)