Talk:Affirmative action

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

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).

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RyanDing26 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by !777francis777! (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Affirmative action in Sri Lanka

Why is this section's neutrality being disputed? Jarble (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Positive Discrimination

The British term for 'affirmative action' is 'positive discrimination', not 'positive action'. There's a difference between these terms! Positive action is about helping marginalised groups, but one will not lower standards for them. An example of helping them would be including them in advertisements, hiring them if they meet the conditions, etc. מושא עקיף (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I just added again, I think whoever edited it thought they were synonyms. ComradeHektor (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL 1301

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).

— Assignment last updated by Esycgndur64sdikyv (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Combining "Support"/"Criticism" sections?

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.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, before I make any bold edits? Lewisguile (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this change. I think readers are smart enough to distinguish support from criticism anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

It is a good change. I think similar combining support and criticism like that on other WP pages would help improve WP:NPOV generally. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It also flows better. Lewisguile (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)