Wikipedia:Peer review/Brown v. Board of Education/archive1

Brown v. Board of Education
Aguably one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court of the U.S., the article on Brown has recently undergone substantial expansion. I am hoping that this is on the way to featured article status. however, I am concered that the subject of the effects and outcomes of Brown are undercovered, and that there may be too much "really, my home town isn't full of bigots" explanation of the situation in Topeka. Therefore, I humbly request peer review.... Rick Boatright 23:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not a bad article, although I think there are too many graphics and photos. I'm not sure why we need to know what Monroe Elementary looks like, for instance.  IMHO, the "Supreme Court" sidebar and the map indicating which states had racial segregation at the time is all the graphics we need.

Also, the ==Myths== page needs to be cleaned up. --Micahbrwn 03:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the self-congratulatory photo of Thurgood Marshall and company dates to the earliest versions of the page. Monroe Elementary, I added in order to show the "Not a dilapodated tar-paper-shack"- but you're probebly right that what I need to do is just make a "Monroe Elementary" page. what sort of cleanup of myths do you have in mind? -- ThanksRick Boatright 03:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One problem with comprehensiveness is that (legal) criticism of the decision in Brown is not discussed at all. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

ouch. You're right, but that sure feels like stepping into a Roe v. Wade tarpit. But you're right. Rick Boatright 13:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this the sort of criticism you have in mind? I -think- I can re-work Justice Thomas position from Jenkins.... or perhaps quote his opinion. Rick Boatright 15:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to get anything like Roe v. Wade, where obviously the controversy is the main issue. But a couple paragraphs would fill out the article well. The first paragraph here has a couple good points:


 * "In hindsight, I believe that the Court’s opinion had two major defects. First, the Court failed to show that its decision was really an outgrowth of previous rulings. By the time that the Court decided Brown, the handwriting was on the wall; the constitutional invalidity of segregation had been all but established. A firmer ruling, more rooted in a legal context reaching back well over 50 years, would have discouraged the kinds of resistance that made integration so protracted and difficult. Second, the Court did not specify the remedy for segregation – and when it did so a year later, in Brown v. Board of Education II, it gave the nation a formula (“all deliberate speed”) that encouraged southern resistance."


 * I have posted a draft of a criticism section on the talk page. Talk:Brown v. Board of Education Rick Boatright 17:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: "cleanup of myths", I really don't know what I have in mind. To be honest, I don't think that section even belongs there... since its essentially a whole lot of what Brown isn't. Also, the listing of myths with bullet points doesn't sit right with me. Perhaps it would be better to reformat into concise (and brief) paragraphs. Something along the lines of how snopes.com debunks urban legends, perhaps. --Micahbrwn 16:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree about having it here. A quick google search for Brown returns that essentially EVERY page includes the "walked two miled across a dangerous rail yard at night, in the snow uphill both ways" myth.  I think that this common misperception in the popular culture is 'important', and deserving of a mention in that it is part of being enclyclopaedic about Brown.  "The case behind brown is frequently misunderstood."  ... perhaps a "myths" section isn't quite the right way to do it, but the content belongs.  I'll think about the Snopes idea.  Rick Boatright 17:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The information is useful, but having it is a separate myths section is not a good idea. Perhaps it would be best to integrate it into the ==The case== section. - SimonP 19:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understand a ==References== section, and understand the idea of using footnotes to printed sources, but I think I strongly disagree that a long discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote etc should be incorporated into the body of the article. Doing a reasonable job, and balancing the -as you pointed out- ample secondary literature, would require a book length text. As to the socio-political implications, that mostly happens under the various "Civil Rights" pages, _all_ of which refer to Brown. But I'm afraid I'm one of those who feel that the old 32K limit for articles was a GOOD thing, and that a CLUSTER of articles around a complex issue serves the wiki better. Rick Boatright 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC) Fair enough. That I can do. as to 10 books, HA! Way way _way_ over that now. Working WINNOWING the references section before posting it.... Thanks Rick Boatright 22:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While this is not bad for a normal article, and I commend the authors for their work, this article needs a good deal of work before attaining featured status. The socio/political implications of the ruling need to be discussed at length, and the ruling itself needs to be dealt with in far greater detail. Furthermore, the history of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote, how his political skills helped here, the death of the former chief justice, these all need to be discussed. The case was re-argued -- the oral arguments, easily available, need to be analysed. This article cites no law review articles and no books on the Warren court (even a general history of the Supreme Court would be helpful here); there is a substantial literature on the subject -- print academic sources need to be consulted. Not to be too discouraging -- I've never gotten a featured article myself -- just keep plugging away! --Zantastik talk  20:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Once the considerable secondary literature has been consultated, it will be necessary to use footnotes as well. --Zantastik talk  20:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said that a "long" discussion of how Warren succeded in getting a 9-0 vote was needed, but the unanamity was very difficult to obtain and is generally regarded as a masterstroke -- if a southern justice had dissented, some scholars consider that the decision would have proved to be significantly more difficult to implement. Thus, the 9-0 vote was very important and Warren, an apt politican, was able to obtain it after a great deal of effort. The article needs to discuss this; read any book that deals with the case -- you'll find ample material. Point taken about the implications of the case; still, adding a little bit there wouldn't hurt. But I just don't think that such an important aspect of this matter -- how Warren got a 9-0 vote -- can be dispensed with. And consulting 10 books or so for an article doesn't reauire the author to write a book-length article; think of short-ish academic articles, for example. --Zantastik talk  20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand who won "Brown III" -- Brown or the school district? Mwalcoff 01:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)