Talk:The Negro Family: The Case For National Action

Page Improvement

This subject definitely needs something more than a stub followed by a disjointed rebuttal. I don't have the time to work on it now, so if anyone wants to take it on or collaborate with me on it soon that'd be cool. --JMurphy 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I used the Moynihan report itself because it seemed right to me to include the information and reasoning he gave to explain his positioning and understanding behind his findings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemansolo (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for the source/citation for this line: "Modern scholars of the 21st century, including Douglas Massey, believe that the report was one of the more influential in the construction of the War on Poverty." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JedBickman (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A link to the actual report should be much more visible. Perhaps when the title of the report is given at the very start of the article, it should be a link to the report (or have a footnote with the link). 73.162.56.120 (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Other commentators

Would it be appropriate to mention the remarks of Bill Cosby? He talks a lot about personal responsibility in relation to social and economic success, acknowledging but largely downplaying "social structure" factors. One of his speeches attracted an entire book in rebuttal. [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Subject edit

The section 'Feminist Marxists Critique' beginning: "Ultimately, it was this shift in..." and ending "...Report was first published." most definitely appears to be synthesis but is not quoted or identified as such. The speaking tense of it is definitely not standard for an encyclopedia entry. I don't think it proper to simply remove the section since it is a mention-worthy counterpoint. This article deals with both race and gender after all. It does need to be 'refined' to Encyclopedia quality though. 66.133.190.128 (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC) janson 1 AUG 2013

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428151006/http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/webid-meynihan.htm to http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/webid-meynihan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904104748/http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/ryan.htm to http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/ryan.htm

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) 04:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Links to report

Moynihan's report, cited as footnote 6 in The Negro Family: The Case For National Action and footnote 12 in Daniel Patrick Moynihan has a link to the Internet archive site, as well as a link to what is referred to as the original, a link to a Department of Labor site. The link to the original is a page not found. I believe the original can be found at this site: US Department of Labor.

I crossposted this to the talk pages of both articles.

There are four issues worth discussing:

1. it is commonly noted that when a citation is a dead link, the citation should not be simply removed, as it provides information about the original source of the material and may be useful. Arguably, this is a different situation, as the original source was a Department of Labor site, and I have found the material on the Department of Labor site. I think I should replace the URL associated with "original" to the current working version. I'm composing this as a question rather than simply doing it in case there is some reason to do something different.
2. The material at the current Department of Labor site is largely the same as that in the Internet archive site. However, the Department of Labor site includes a page of footnote references here, which is not at the Internet archive site. While it should be easy to create an Internet archive site of that page, the Internet archive site has links from one page to another and I don't know how to set it up so that it would automatically pick up the footnote references page. Any thoughts?
3. The bottom of the first page of the current version as well as the Internet archive site contains the following text: "NOTE: The 1965 published version of this Report included numerous tables and graphs, which are not reproduced electronically here at this time. Readers who wish to use the graphics should be able to access a printed copy of the Report at the nearest Federal Depository Library. Contact the U.S. Government Publishing Office for locations." I haven't located that material at the Internet archive or at the Department of Labor site. It would be useful to have that information also linked. Does anyone have access to an online version?
4. I had hope this material might be at Wikisource. it does not appear to be. Does anyone have any thoughts on why it is not there and whether there are good reasons not to post it at Wikisource? I'm separately going to post there and suggest that the report as well as the supplementary tables and graphs be included in Wikisource.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)