User talk:68.110.172.111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Do NOT attack other editors

Look. The first reviewer for that article was very correct in declining that article. You need 3rd party sources for the subject, not 1st person. 2 sources which were given were her own biographies, and the other two links were written by her. These are not reputable, nor would they follow the WP:NPOV policy very well.

As for the "we need an editor who knows what they're doing" comment, that was extremely inappropriate. That can be viewed as a personal attack, which are strictly prohibited. I will not be re-reviewing that article, as I believe that the original reviewer did a good job declining. GrooveDog (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding unsourced material

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Affirmative action, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Affirmative action. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You added information to the article and it was removed. You have inserted it again (reverted) three times. If you revert again, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, you deleted it because it had no source. I put it back in with a source. That is not a revert. Besides that would have been a good point to bring up in discussion rather than starting an edit war because you disagree with the point.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Affirmative action

Maybe you need to read your source more carefully. The Encarta article says:

  • "The term affirmative action was first used by President John F. Kennedy in a 1961 executive order designed to encourage contractors on projects financed with federal funds to racially integrate their workforces. Kennedy's executive order declared that federal contractors should 'take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin."

But you're trying to say that affirmative action meant one thing under Kennedy and only "Later" did it come to describe "programs intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing". But that's exactly what Kennedy's executive order was intended to do — promote access to employment.

Yup, note Kennedy's executive order declared that federal contractors should 'take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during their employment, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin. was not preferential treatment in employment only that they be employed without regard to race etc. If Kenedy was inteding Affirmative Action to mean preferential treatment in employment why would it later mention Nixon's 1969 policy which would garuntee employment to minorities? These are two different concepts. Please recognize them.<wally>

Also, please read WP:LEDE:

  • "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources."

Is your (incorrect) interpretation of the "original meaning" of the phrase affirmative action the most important fact about it? Why does it belong in the first sentence of the article? The article, as it was previously written, was right:

  • "Affirmative action in the United States is intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities or women)."

You can't dispute that. It's a simple definition of what affirmative action is. Maybe you should read the rest of the lede, which includes this as its third paragraph:

  • "The overall framework of affirmative action in the United States was established by Executive Order 10925, issued in March 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, but has evolved significantly. The original order required government contractors to take 'affirmative action' to ensure equal treatment of applicants and employees 'without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.'"

There is simply no reason to include your unsourced editorial comment in the first two sentences of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with "Affirmative action in the United States is intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities or women)." That is today's useage. I get the feeling that you don't want to work this out and include an original definition of the term.
No, that's what affirmative action has always meant in the United States. Note the use of the word or. Initially employment, later education and housing. Always about promoting access.
As I wrote above, the original implementation of affirmative action in the United States is already discussed. If you find a reliable source that supports your theory that the meaning of the phrase has changed over time, that is the appropriate place to discuss it. Not the first sentence of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That is simply not true. "Take Affirmative Action" did not mean "give preferential treatment" It is very clear in the language of the executive order that it was to be a race neutral policy. Today "Affirmative Action" is not race neutral. This is a distinction that is clear as night and day. These differences should be noted in the article.