Wikipedia

Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968/Archive 1

< Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968
Latest comment: 4 years ago by DisabilityAdvocacy4U in topic Violations of Federal Fair Housing Act?
Archive 1

Merger of Civil Rights Act of 1968 & Fair Housing

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1968 was referred to by two other names.One, the Housing Rights Act of 1968 and the second, the Fair Housing Act. Actually, Title VIII of the CRA of 1968 contains the provisions for what is commonly referred to as the Fair Housing Act. For a brief survey of the history of the Fair Housing Act, see "Housing" From the U.S. Department of Justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchumch (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair housing encompasses more than the Title VIII of the CRA of 1968, so I can't see merging the two articles. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see the FHA being a part of "Fair Housing." After all, it's an important component, and legal crystalization, of the concept. Saltyseaweed 00:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted, this Civil Rights Act deals almost exclusively with fair housing, but it is also a key part of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. I think this would be lost if it were merged. Better to just link to it. --FreeTheHeel 23:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OPPOSE the merge idea; just link. Jon 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Instead of merging this article and the Fair Housing article, how about merging this with the Indian Rights Act of 1968 and making this into an article only about the Fair Housing Act itself. The Indian Rights Act of 1968 IS the Civil Rights Act of 1968 with the exception of Title VIII, which is the Fair Housing Act. Zppdppd 6 April 2011

amelia tellng you about civilrights

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i llike this website iit is so intersting its everthing yuo need to no about history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.76.109 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor point

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Great article, but would it not be helpful to state explicitly at some point which country this refers to? Of course it's not hard to guess/work out from other clues on the page, but it might be good to clarify it for non-US readers. Melissza (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No active conversation in four years

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Given that there has been no active conversation on whatever the reasons originally were for flagging this article, the flags will now be removed. Skywriter (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Add an external link to the actual act

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it would make sense. --TheRaven7 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I do to think it would make sense. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.121.140 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where was the information for the Lawful discrimination paragraph found? Please cite the source.

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lawful discrimination

Only certain kinds of discrimination are covered by fair housing laws. Landlords are not required by law to rent to any tenant who applies for a property. Landlords can select tenants based on objective business criteria, such as the applicant's ability to pay the rent and take care of the property. Landlords can lawfully discriminate against tenants with bad credit histories or low incomes, and (except in some areas) do not have to rent to tenants who will be receiving Section 8 vouchers. Landlords must be consistent in the screening, treat tenants who are inside and outside the protected classes in the same manner, and should document any legitimate business reason for not renting to a prospective tenant. As of 2010, no federal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is provided, but these protections do exist in some localities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

I have not been able to find any information on Lawful Discrimination in the Fair Housing Act.

Where was the information for the above paragraph found? Please cite the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.189.167 (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civil Rights Act of 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger of Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into this article

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was consensus to merge. The very fact this article needs expansion on these two fronts, which a merge can address, has been a central argument of participants here. El_C 02:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A request to merge the Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 into the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Fair Housing Act are the core components of this act, excluding Titles I and X. Both of those articles are start-class. They also posses overlapping content with this article that would further reduce their size.

I'm trying to restructure the article Civil Rights Act of 1968 (see before) to better reveal the basic parts of the act. Alot of sections of this article are empty. The empty sections can be filled in with content from those other articles. Perhaps in the future content for both of those articles would become substantial enough to warrant a separate article. That future has not currently arrived. Mitchumch (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Oppose, best to keep it as is, as the 1968 Fair Housing Act is a prominent part of the Civil Rights Movement, and has been one of he main markers for the end of the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement. The page seems more than a 'start' article, and contains stand-alone information for its topic. Much of the article can be merged here, but keeping it as a separate page allows for a full focus and explanation on an important topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Randy Kryn
"the 1968 Fair Housing Act is a prominent part ...": The issue isn't about prominence of the Fair Housing Act. The issue is the absence of content in this article about the Fair Housing Act. The legislative history, descriptions of Titles VIII and IX, public reaction, amendments, case law, and legacy are either missing or bare bones in this article. The moment that content is added to this article, the separate article will be pure overlap with no reason to exists. An article like "Fair Housing Act" should only exists if there is a need to WP:Split.
"contains stand-alone information for its topic ..." Please provide examples of "stand-alone information". I don't see it.
" keeping it as a separate page allows for a full focus and explanation on an important topic. ...": The opposite of a "full focus and explanation" has occurred on the FHA article. The FHA article was created on 6 November 2003, several months before the CRA of 1968 article was created on 13 May 2004. It remains a start-class article with little development. The CRA article remains a better platform to develop that article in a comprehensive manner.
If and when the FHA article merits a separate article, then I will support it 100%. It hasn't occurred yet. Mitchumch (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This page is very lacking in material now, and looks like a page in progress. And since the Act covered a wide range of topics, and they already have good stand-alone pages (the Indian Act - which isn't covered here at all- and the Fair Housing Act) there is no reason to include both full pages here, and that's what they'd have to be to cover the overall subject in a merge. The commonly known Fair Housing Act is an outgrowth of the Civil Rights Movement, but the entire 1968 Act isn't (it even includes a section on interstate travel to riot, which is an odd thought-crime provision). So keeping the pages separate, with a good but not full-page summary here, seems to have worked well so far. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
"page is very lacking in material now, and looks like a page in progress": The contents are scattered on three different pages. That is the reason for the merge.
"keeping the pages separate, with a good but not full-page summary here, seems to have worked well so far": The article was an incoherent mess and is now a near empty mess. The other two articles are stuck in start-class. To create "a good but not full-page summary here" would be to duplicate content from the other two articles in this article. Those two article topics combined represent 85%-95% of the CRA of 1968. Mitchumch (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Support It's better to have related topics merged into one article so that readers get have a better encyclopedic understanding of the topic. Articles should be based as much as possible center on topics, such as in this case the fight over fair housing, rather than on individual items or events. Instead of having separate items for each individual laws, we should provide an encyclopedic overview of fair housing and how each item, each law, each case, each... fits into the whole, until the article gets too long and then it can be split, but by topic, not item.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Support. All three articles need work, and the best way to improve them for the moment is to merge the FHA and ICRA articles into the main CRA article. There isn't enough unique content to justify them being split in their current form, and inclusion of that content in the CRA article will result in a more complete overview. I particularly agree with Mitchumch's quote, If and when the FHA article merits a separate article, then I will support it 100%. It hasn't occurred yet. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 01:32, 03 May 2019 (UTC)
Support: Per my own nomination. Mitchumch (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

(Summoned by bot) Undecided. I've added {{section size}} bars to the Talk pages on all three, so they may be more easily compared. Currently, the sum of all three (if no loss for common material) would be around 51kb, which is right at the threshold of WP:SIZESPLIT, which says: A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes, and: At 50 kB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles.

Given the above, @Mitchumch:, can you comment on these questions:

  1. What would the downside be as you see it, of treating Civil Rights Act of 1968 as the parent article in a Summary style organization, with a couple of {{Main}} links in the appropriate subsections pointing to the child articles Fair Housing Act and Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968?
  2. Do you think it very unlikely that the child articles could or would be expanded?
  3. Are either of the child articles untenable as stand-alone articles due to size or notability? FHA is 12kb and 14 refs, ICRA is 10kb and 7 refs currently.

Thanks, (please ping) Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot I think you may have confused bytes for kB (or maybe I am confused). The chart for WP:SIZESPLIT shows:
Readable prose size (kB/characters) What to do
> 100kB / 100,000 chars Almost certainly should be divided
>  60kB / 60,000 chars Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
>  50kB / 50,000 chars May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
<  40kB / 40,000 chars Length alone does not justify division
<   1kB / 1,000 chars If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.
According to WP:SIZERULE, "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means), and each kB can be equated to 1,000 characters. Number of characters in an article can be found with the help of XTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under "Prose" in the "General statistics" section ..."
According to XTools in the "Prose" section:
  • Fair Housing Act: "Page size" is 12,349 bytes and 5,330 "Characters" which equals 5.33kB
  • Civil Rights Act of 1968: "Page size" is 31,013 bytes and 11,000 "Characters" which equals 11kB
  • Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968: "Page size" is 10,412 bytes and 3,456 "Characters" which equals 3.456kB
Total bytes: 53,774
Total characters: 19,786
Total kB: 19.786 (19,786 characters divided by 1000)
I didn't answer your three questions because they were dependent upon the total kB being around 51kB, instead of the actual kB being less than 20kB. Mitchumch (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mitchumch:, That was helpful; I wasn't aware of the "readable prose" - "history bytes" distinction. Mathglot (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violations of Federal Fair Housing Act?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Who are Julian and Daniel who authored the section on Violations of Federal Fair Housing Act? They give no references to support their arguments and I sure would like to see them give us the definition of "white housing project." Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I have never heard of such a thing. Their entire argument assumes that whites and blacks have their "own" neighborhoods and, therefore, they conclude the cause of this phenomenon must necessarily be based on color, not economics. However, even labeling a block of homes as a "white housing project" or "black housing project" or a "white neighborhood" or "black neighborhood" is a violation of the Fair Housing Act and perpetuates a racist paradigm. Readwhatsthere (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The section above in the article regarding the Denton and Massey Index is a much more intelligent discussion, yet they too jump to a conclusion (apparently) that the segregation of neighborhoods is based on discriminatory practices. By whom? Is it really discrimination by those offering the choices, or is it discrimination by those making the choice of where to live? Let's make sure we ask ALL the right questions. Empirical science demands control of all the variables, not just those that fit our own biases.Readwhatsthere (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing on this page that explains how the Fair Housing Act affects people with disabilities. This is important because it can be the difference between someone with a disability living in the community and/or aging in place and having to live in an institution or nursing home.DisabilityAdvocacy4U (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)<Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications/>

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968/Archive_1&oldid=1186130578"