From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBrown v. Board of Education has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2005 Peer reviewReviewed
September 10, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
January 20, 2023 Good article reassessmentKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 17, 2004, May 17, 2008, May 17, 2009, May 17, 2010, May 17, 2011, May 17, 2013, May 17, 2014, May 17, 2016, May 17, 2019, and May 17, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Huxman Findings of Fact

Failing to mention Judge Huxman's "findings of fact" at the appeals district level is a serious omission. Without that, things would quite likely have gone the other way at the Supreme Court. These findings included the detrimental effect of a segregated education upon the children. This is arguably the linchpin on which the Supreme Court decision was made.

This brief newspaper account mentions it. Other sources provide the full set of "findings of fact", explaining why the appeals court had to rule the way it did, while handing this case to the Supreme Court with the facts that would justify overturning Plessey v. Ferguson. Yet there is absolutely no mention of this in the article.

Adding this link to view Huxman's opinion of the Tenth Circuit Court case. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply

That's not a Tenth Circuit decision. It's the trial decision from the District of Kansas that was appealed directly to SCOTUS under the old version of 28 U.S.C.  § 2284.   White Whirlwind  00:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I admit I have been confused about this. I assumed Federal cases would have to go through an appeals court before they could be heard by the supreme court? And as well, I had assumed that a 3-judge panel indicated it was at the appeals level.
So to clarify, because this case raised constitutional issues, it was initially heard by a 3-judge panel and then they could request a writ of certiorari for it to be heard by the Supreme Court. Is that right? But these are old rules and no longer apply? Am I close? Fabrickator ( talk) 00:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply
In the past, the Supreme Court had much less say in the cases it took than it does today. Many cases could be appealed to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. During the late 19th century, Congress passed a law saying that certain types of cases could be heard by a panel of three judges immediately upon being filed in the trial court. These cases could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. No certiorari was involved. You can identify these cases because the prior history will say "probable jurisdiction noted" instead of "cert. granted". One type of case that could be heard this way was any action in which the constitutionality of a state or federal law was challenged. Congress removed those types of cases from the statute in 1976. Only a small subset of cases still work this way, as you can see from § 2284(a).   White Whirlwind  04:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I have previously made reference to the "findings of fact" issued by presiding Judge Walter A. Huxman in the lower court, but there have been disparaging statements made about some of the sources from which this might be obtained (e.g. the "Famous Trials" website). I therefore provide this reference:

Huxman, Walter A. (Autumn 1952). "The Topeka, Kansas Case Decision". Journal of Negro Education. 21 (4): 522–527. JSTOR  2293822.

As per the above source, Finding of Fact IV states:

There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respect to those in the white schools.

This finding of fact by the lower court, in conjunction with Finding of Fact VIII, effectively precluded a finding in favor of Brown that would have allowed the doctrine of separate but equal to stand. Fabrickator ( talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

That "journal article" is just a reprint of the district court's decision from the Federal Supplement. I fail to see why we're devoting so much attention to such a minor part of the article.   White Whirlwind  04:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I only offered this particular source because of your concern about the appropriateness of citing the "Famous Trials" website.
We would have to speculate how the SC would have ruled in the absence of this finding, but it seems to be a fundamental aspect of the basis for overturning "separate but equal". Now if someone wants details on how they came up with this, they know to do further reading on the lower court case. Absent the source of this finding, the reader is likely to assume that the SC came up with this finding on its own. Fabrickator ( talk) 21:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I was looking around a bit more regarding the "findings of fact", and I came across The Authority of Race in Legal Decisions: The District Court Opinions of Brown v. Board of Education. Perhaps this is just somebody's draft, but the part that caught my eye was this quote:

... their final judgment of law did not incorporate the substantial testimony of social science evidence that the LDF lawyers presented about the psychological effect of racial prejudice and segregation. Perhaps as a compromise, the judges attached nine findings of fact to their decision ...

My impression is that including this finding of fact did not represent a compromise, but something the court had believed would be likely to be relevant to the disposition of the case. Hopefully this would have been reworded prior to actual publication. Fabrickator ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Good Article Reassessment

Brown v. Board of Education

The following discussion 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.

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: No consensus. Good articles are not even required to have one citation per paragraph, as this article has general references (see WP:GACN). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

A GA from 2007. The biggest problem is the massive amount of unsourced material in the article that, if not taken care, will result in the article's delisting. Hopefully someone can work on this. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Also a Vital Article (L5) and should be promoted there. Gusfriend ( talk) 10:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I placed a 'catch all' notice on the talk page. There are a large number of Vital articles being reassessed and it wouldn't be worth cluttering their talk page. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
It's hard to say and I believe that the article could be better. There are citations at the end of most paragraphs but usually high quality essays will have a citation at the end of each statement. I do not know if it should be delisted by Wikipedia standards but it could use some additional work. Jorahm ( talk) 19:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jorahm: if everything in the paragraph supported by the citation given, that's fine by Wikipedia standards. You do not need to repeat the same citation multiple times within a paragraph. That if is a big if for some articles; some people put a citation at the end of the paragraph that only supports the last sentence, and forget to put a citation needed tag for the rest of the paragraph. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 14:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I am just unclear on how much research is needed for a good article. Citing an entire paragraph to a single source might not be enough in my opinion. It's an area for potential improvement but I am not sure if it would trigger a full review process. Jorahm ( talk) 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
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.

Proposed removal of claim added in 2006

The 00:55 12 January 2006 edit adds a claim that the plaintiffs asserted that the "separate but equal" system "perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment" for black Americans.

This claim is not consistent with the statements made at trial by the plaintiffs' attorneys, and Huxman confirmed the position of the plaintiffs in the "Findings of Fact" section of the District Court ruling. Specifically, Finding Number 4 stated:

There is no material difference in the physical facilities in the colored schools and in the white schools and such facilities in the colored schools are not inferior in any material respects to those in white schools.

It is well-recognized that Huxman was extremely sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but he understood he had no authority to simply overrule Plessy and doing so would be unlikely to have the desired outcome. Fabrickator ( talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Here is another source that contradicts this claim: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Kansas Historical Society), stating

The plaintiffs in Topeka did not charge that the schools' facilities their children attended were inferior, but that segregation itself did psychological and educational damage to black children forced to attend schools isolated from the other children in the community.

Fabrickator ( talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Detrimental effect of segregation

@ White whirlwind: In your edits of 16 October 2023, you pointed out the determination of the detrimental effect of segregation in public schools. However, this is stated without mentioning that this finding of factwas actually part of the opinion in the 1951 trial, presided over by Walter Huxman (as mentioned in Brown v. Board of Education#District court opinion). Fabrickator ( talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What is the relevance of this fact?   White Whirlwind  01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court does not make findings of fact. And as I asserted in #Huxman Findings of Fact, the findings of fact that Huxman provided forced the Supreme Court, if it were to find in favor of Brown, to overturn Plessy (well, at least in this context). (Otherwise, the court could have found in favor of Brown on the basis that the segregated schools were not in equal physical condition.)
In the Huxman section, I gave context to the "findings of fact" by making a "forward reference" to the Supreme Court opinion ("This finding would be specifically cited in the subsequent Supreme Court opinion ..."). When we cite this finding under the Brown v. Board of Education#Supreme court opinion, we should make clear that this is actually a finding from the District Court case. Fabrickator ( talk) 01:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I fail to see how the source of the findings would be relevant information for an average reader of this article. Also, I don't recall seeing any major source devote attention to that fact. (I seem to recall discussing this with you before.) Let's see if anyone agrees with your proposition.   White Whirlwind  04:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Here are some sources that take note of Louisa Holt's testimony, referenced in the findings of the trial court and cited by the Supreme Court:
Fabrickator ( talk) 19:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

add start and end date to sidebar

dates it started dec 1952 and ended may 1954 https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. and https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/landmark-brown-v-board-education/#:~:text=When%20Did%20Brown%20v.,Columbia%20starting%20in%20December%201952. Ocueye ( talk) 16:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis ( talk) 17:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Why does the article say "**was** a landmark decision?"

On other SCOTUS decision articles, it usually uses "is" to describe currently active decisions, and "was" to describe overruled decisions. Why is this one saying "was," when Brown v. Board of Education is still active and was never overruled? DocZach ( talk) 18:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Here's the November 7, 2007 edit that introduced the change, without any explanation. Fabrickator ( talk) 04:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Many major SCOTUS decision articles use "was", such as Marbury v. Madison, Loving v. Virginia, McCulloch v. Maryland, Miranda v. Arizona, and others. I go back and forth on which is better. "Was" is useful because it emphasizes that the decisions really are "decisions" which took place on certain dates. "Is" is useful because they have continuing applicability until they are overruled, but "is" also introduces the problem of requiring editors to decide when a decision has been overruled, which in my opinion would be a bad idea for many reasons.   White Whirlwind  05:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Brown wasn't overruled though. DocZach ( talk) 02:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Obviously not. But neither were any of the others I mentioned. The potential problem is a general one, as I indicated.   White Whirlwind  15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Brown_v._Board_of_Education&oldid=1218418197"