Talk:Racial segregation in the United Kingdom

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although racial segregation was never made legal in the UK, many places operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain spaces and facilities? Source: "the colour bar... ran through both imperial society and postwar Britain like letters through seaside rock." [1]
  • ALT0a: ... that racial segregation was never mandated in the UK, many places operated a colour bar where non-white customers were banned from using certain spaces and facilities? --evrik ^(talk) 14:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT1: ... that many places in the UK were racially segregated and non-white customers were banned from using spaces and facilities, even though the law never officially permitted such a colour bar? Source: "the colour bar... ran through both imperial society and postwar Britain like letters through seaside rock." [2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lichexanthone

5x expanded by Davidjes601 (talk). Nominated by Zeromonk (talk) at 15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC).

• How are you measuring the 5x expanison? There are a couple of tags on the article. The text should be given a copyedited. Perhaps refer this to the Guild of Copyeditors? The first two sentences should be rewritten for clarity. There are a couple of grammatical errors in the text. Also, the hook seems to be a double negative. I would rewrite the hook as well. --evrik ^(talk) 13:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• As per DYK check: "Article became a non-redirect on March 3, 2022. Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 60 edits ago on March 10, 2022." Article was 42 bytes on 3rd and 15,474 bytes by 10 March, so clearly more than x5 expansion. I would contest the suggestion that the text requires anything more than a very light-touch copyedit - certainly not enough to prevent DYK. The hook is not a double negative - the UK law never officially said it was okay to be racist but people did it anyway. Zeromonk (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was curious about the date because the March 3 date cannot be seen because of copyright issues, and I was wondering why this wasn't nominate as a new article. I find the prose to be clunky and suggest you take this to Wikipedia:GOCE. There are still unresolved tags that need to be addressed. Today, I'm not inclined to pass this nomination. --evrik ^(talk) 13:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• It appears that copyediting and other edits have been accomplished. Is this nomination good to go now or are there still issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hook is awkward and needs to be rewritten. AGF on the sources. New enough, long enough, adequately sourced, QPQ done. Does not pass earwig the text flagged needs to be rewritten. I'm not clear on the date of the 5x expansion, but will let that pass. --evrik ^(talk) 04:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks folks for the reviews - I've added an Alt-hook but the article written after the Wiki article is causing the CopyVio - you'll see from the publication dates that the Wiki one came first, so it isn't actually CopyVio - the later article echoes this text rather than the other way around. Zeromonk (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'll approve Alt1, and am offering Alt0a for the promoter. --evrik ^(talk) 14:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Private members' clubs

"In 1969, Amarjit Shah, 27, a postal and telegraph worker, complained to the Conservative party leader, Ted Heath, that he was refused membership of a London Conservative Club. Shah was a party worker for East Ham Conservative party but resigned from the party after he refused entry due to his colour."
Should there be "was" in the second sentence? That is: "Shah was a party worker for East Ham Conservative party but resigned from the party after he was refused entry due to his colour."
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"not a collection of newspaper clippings"

@Drmies:, could you give more context to this edit? Summary: "we should have content sourced properly, not a collection of newspaper clippings". I see that some citations to The Stage were incomplete, but every sentence has a source. What is your reasoning for removing this whole chunk of text and citations? MartinPoulter (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• MartinPoulter, thanks--my problem here is that this content was a loose collection of factoids, and that's not how we should write encyclopedic articles. For such important content, which needs to be studied as a whole, one really needs academic sources that do provide an overview of the matter, not "person X was banned from a club". This is not accessible to me, but it's a one-page article (who knows how long) from a Belfast newspaper from 1974 that, judging from the wording in our article, is specific likely to a specific incident in 1974. If such a loophole existed, and if it matters (and I actually don't doubt it), there should be much better sourcing available since it concerns a nation-wide and pretty important piece of legislation, or the lack thereof. There seems to be some sourcing for that--here, for example, but I'm no expert on this content. If a more general and properly sourced overview of the topic is written, then some of the individual factoids might fit into that larger whole to exemplify the general issue, but right now the general issue is just not well-explained or grounded. BTW I find that this applies to other parts of the article as well, but one thing at a time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and clear response. I agree that the specific reported instances need ultimately to be in the context of an overview based on academic and legal sources. I do question whether the text needs to be improved is sufficient rationale for deleting all of it as opposed to tagging the issue or posting a critique on Talk as you've now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)