Talk:Disfranchisement after the Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First draft

This article draws together information which has been scattered among several articles (such as Poll tax not showing the relationship with Literacy test. Some info belongs here more than in other articles (such as in Jim Crow laws). More editing of this article will be needed before material can be removed from other articles. Edit away. (SEWilco 06:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I left the "under construction" banner up to indicate it is known that this article isn't quite complete yet. There are a bunch of adjustments to be made, many which will be obvious to all. Including some 1912 phrasing and a mixed bag of wikilinks. (SEWilco 06:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Construction banner removed. (SEWilco 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 1912 writing still evident in here

It needs to be updated. I replaced one "must" with a "had to". 204.52.215.107 (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs good sources and citations

The article has many inaccuracies of time and fact. I've made some changes, but it needs extensive citations to support the constitutional changes and assessments of their impacts.--Parkwells (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs much more work

Article jumps around in time and concepts. Needs much more work.--Parkwells (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title does not reflect content

Given the title of "Disfranchisement", some of the article seems oddly more directed at highlighting constitutional reforms in northern states that expanded suffrage. Whether or not that data is provided only for contrast, the section on Southern actions should come first. If the article is to be more general, maybe the title should be "Turn of the century state constitutions", but that does not focus enough on the severe problem of disfranchisement.--Parkwells (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the title implies that it ought to also deal with the disenfranchisement of former Confederates, which was a major part of Reconstruction, though later revoked. john k (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. It should really be "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction", since that is the intent. It was started by someone else. I took out the northern material as there was so much to deal with in the South in terms of disfranchising African Americans and poor whites, but never went back to the title. That's all I want to deal with at this point. Will have to think about the title.--Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that you brought this up, I really want to change the title to "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction". Do you know if there is a bot or a way to redirect, so that all the titles could be changed in references, or that references by the earlier title will go to the newly titled page? I hope not to have to do it one by one. --Parkwells (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How about I create another article entitled "Disfranchisement after Reconstruction" and move all this text to that? Then I could add a little material to make a stub article at "Disfranchisement after the Civil War" to apply to the Confederates. There would have to be some redirect at the Disambiguation page, but that can be arranged, I think. Other articles have evolved. Can't think of any other solution.--Parkwells (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In progress

There is extensive documentation of the issues and facts discussed here, and I've been working to find sources - did not start the original article, but this is not original research. Please allow time for sourcing before deleting material. --Parkwells (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Article could use an image of orderly black voting - I've seen one or more from contemporary Harper's Weekly articles. Help would be appreciated in locating one.--Parkwells (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)