RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $5800Goal: $6000
Information icon.svg The 2018 moderator election has started! We are electing 6 moderators and 2 alternatives to serve in 2019. Nominate users here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Interracial marriage in the United States

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Shouldn't this be named "Loving v. Virginia", or whatever the exact case title was? Since that's what it's about, really? humanUser talk:Human 13:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's a rather formal approach to the subject. I was looking at it as more of a human interest and historical story than a dry Supreme Court case. Rational Edperception 14:45, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
The article is fine, SC cases don't have to be "dry". This is RWish - it tells the story behind the case and the results. But if it weren't for the case, no one would ever have heard of the characters in the story. Anyway, if you do move it, this time I'd leave the redirect in place. Keep in mind no one will ever randomly link to this title, but at least the SC case title might get mentioned. PS, I like that someone talked at main:CP about her passing... I almost added a bit that said "this article posted in memoriam of x.y. Loving, 1234-2008" or some such. humanUser talk:Human 15:43, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Human, why don't you write an article on the supreme court case? Rational Edperception 11:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
Or we could get Caius to do it ;) I like where you've gone with this article, by the way, the title is now completely reasonable. Thanks for making it make sense to me. Oh, we should redlink Loving v. Virginia (as soon as we're sure of the case title) and drop it like a steaming turd to be picked up on Caius' talk page with an explicit writing plan. !!! humanUser talk:Human 14:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Um, I tried to add the red link. It ain't red, someone has been here before us, mate! humanUser talk:Human 14:32, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

It was my intention from the beginning to flesh it out a little, starting with the Loving case. I have this feeling that most young people today (get off my grass!) don't have a clue how recently racism was the law in the United States. Most "kids today" probably think that the 60's were totally liberated, whereas that's when the process just got started. Rational Edperception 15:24, 7 May 2008 (EDT)