Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1968

Latest comment: 9 months ago by Makeitfun in topic Title VII clarification

merge parts & titles?

edit

these two incomplete sections could be one complete section Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Confusing, overly detailed, and overly technical introduction

edit

I opened this Wikipedia article hoping to learn, in straightforward terms:

-The overall intended purpose of this law

-What practical effect it had

-Its historical significance

-Its context in history (e.g., why it was passed, and why in 1968)

Instead, the introduction is really in the weeds. It's fine to be in the weeds further down in the body of the article, but I think the intro should be easier to understand. YarrowFlower (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Title VII clarification

edit

In this article, Title VII is only referencing the Indian Civil Rights Act and Indian Law. Why is there no mention of Title VII which established protections for EMPLOYEES belonging to a protected class in America? This is a landmark case for employee civil rights and should be mentioned here. You can see it talked about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_VII_%E2%80%93_equal_employment_opportunity

If the topic of establishing employee protections via Title VII is more appropriately contained in this separate article or otherwise outside the scope of this section here, that is fine, but THIS article at minimum should link to the other appropriate wikipedia articles. In my opinion, this is vital information and absolutely relevant if you are reading about the CRA for the first time. It was baffling to me that the Title VII section contains no reference to employee protections. Am I missing something? Thank you to anyone reading this! Makeitfun (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply