This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affirmative action article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Mismatching was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 17 January 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Affirmative action. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indian caste system, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Caste system in India, DBA experiences, narratives and movements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indian caste systemWikipedia:WikiProject Indian caste systemTemplate:WikiProject Indian caste systemIndian caste system
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yajzel V (article contribs).
Suggested edit to lead paragraph regarding military academies and the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case
The lead paragraph currently says the Students for Fair Admissions ruling "does not explicitly apply to U.S. military academies..." I think it would be more precise to say: "the Court explicitly exempted the U.S. military academies and their use of race-based affirmative action from its ruling," which is more like how the WP article on the Students for Fair Admissions case puts it. Or: "the ruling explicitly left the door open for service academies to continue to use race-conscious admissions programs," which is how the Scotusblog source cited in that article puts it.
The way it's written now makes it seem like the court just didn't say explicitly that the ruling does apply to the military academies, but actually the Court explicitly suggested that ruling may not apply to the military academies. The distinction seems important, but as a relatively new editor on WP, and recognizing this is a controversial topic, I hesitate to change it myself. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'explicitly' is not the right term in this case. It implies that the matter of military academies was directly addressed in the decision. In the Washington Post article on the decision, it says that, "in a footnote, [Chief Justice Roberts] acknowledged that (sic) federal government's interest in diversity recruitment at the nation's military academies. He held out the possibility that an argument could be considered in a future case, 'in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.'" There have been subsequent unsuccessful challenges by the S.F.A. to the military academies' continued use of race-based admissions policies. My suggestion: The ruling acknowledges the "potentially distinct interests that military academies may present" and suggests that an argument on the matter could be considered in a future case. Pillarfog (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 9 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Esycgndur64sdikyv (article contribs).
Normally, we try to avoid "Criticism" sections because they can present problems in achieving WP:NPOV. Perhaps, rather than having separate pro and ante sections, we should have one Responses or Analysis section, so that the main arguments can be raised in one place and either countered or supported in the same section. In my view, this will flow more organically, avoid duplication of content, and make it easier to achieve a neutral POV throughout.
Brilliant. And re-reading both sections, they're not that long and they already include a mix of supporting and critical viewpoints. I think I know how I can do this so it flows a bit better, so I'll see if anyone objects first and then take a stab at this later on today or tomorrow. Lewisguile (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yajzel V (article contribs).