This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disability Ugly law is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Chicago C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following original discussion thread was posted by Susan Schweik on 10 December 2008:

I don't know who's responsible for putting up this text, but much of this language is taken directly from my work, without proper citation--and also with mis-citation (sources I site are wrongly credited with my words). See my essay "Begging the question," footnoted only once here at footnote 3, to see an accurate version of my words and their sources. This is a copyright violation. Susan Schweik

Susan, I apologize if you feel this is a copyright violation. while I created the original page and attempted to write the content in my own words, the content "belongs" to the global Wikipedia community. I would hope that you would see your work being cited in such a public venue as beneficial, not adversarial. However, you're more than welcome to correct the mis-citations. I attempted to locate additional resources concerning "Ugly Laws" and use the original sources you used to provide a more robust reference list. I strongly encourage you to create your own account and add your knowledge to the space! Adam Roades ^Talk 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me the question is not just copyright violation but academic courtesy -- giving credit where is is due within the scholarly world. It starts by putting quotation marks around quotes and naming the correct author. It takes skill to do it right, not just good intentions. 89.217.2.190 (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should explain what the law means by "ugly"; it seems to be opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.16.42 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that these ordinances are misunderstood by those of us who were not alive at the time and in the place of their enactment. It is not out of the realm of possibility that they addressed a valid community concern. Might it have been, for instance, that these folk observed a strong positive correlation between the described set of bodily aspects/affects and the incidence of communicable diseases? In a time before antibiotics and preventative mass inoculation of the public, this could have been a serious concern. Whatever the case, let us not be too quick to sneer at our ancestors or their laws & customs. Is there any doubt that, 120 years hence, people will look aghast upon some of the benighted particulars in OUR ″enlightened″ laws & customs? Ultimately, I think I'm in concert our late 19th century antecedents! 24.8.178.172 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historians learn to understand other societies from within. They treat their subjects with sympathy. They develop a certain sophistication. That's a far cry from tossing out a few pompous sentences of evo-psych. 89.217.2.190 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is directly based off Schweik (2009), which is US-specific. The non-US material is limited to

• the observation that a similar law existed in the UK in 1729
• a reference to a disfigured beggar being charged under an Anti-Social Behavior Order in 2004
• a reference to a Philippine law in 1902

All of these examples are taken from Schweik (2009). The term "ugly laws" is apparently a term coined in the 1970s in the context of the laws being repealed. It also is entirely US specific.

This isn't commenting on the abysmal quality of the writeup itself, which would merit ((cleanup-rewrite)) Many passages are barely comprehensible passages lifted without context from the source, without page numbers. In many places, "ugly laws" are conflated with laws for hygiene and disease control, which I suppose is a related topic and the relationship would need to be presented in a coherent manner, but it is ostensibly not the same to detain people under quarantine and to persecute "unsightly beggars". --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that instead of focussing on its narrow topic, the article takes these laws as an excuse to embark on a rant on the general topic of discrimination of disabled people, and then veering even further away on the topic of discrimination and people being mean to people in general. Idk if this accurately reflects the content of Schweik (2009) but it certainly isn't encyclopedic.

Clearly, "unsightly beggar ordinances" were in origin directed against excessive begging by people aggressiviely exhibiting their disfigurements. Aggressive begging can obviously become a serious problem and passing laws around this is perfectly normal. I assume it is possible that in some instances the laws were then unduly extended to "discriminate against the disabled", but in such cases it would be helpful to give the specifics. What exactly was the wording of these laws, and when and where were they extended to go beyond aggressive begging? Was the criticism justified? Was there any controversial discussion, or was it a case, as suggested in the article, of everybody being mean to the disabled until 1970 or so, when disability activists pointed out that everyone was mean, and then people fixed the problem and started to be nicer?

Also,

"In San Francisco, Chinese immigrants and their descendants were unlawfully quarantined to prevent spread of disease and epidemics"

What on earth does this have to do with the "ugly laws"? Was the reason given the prevention of epidemics, or the unsightly beggar ordinances? And in either case, what is the meaning of "unlawful" in this context? Was it literally unlawful, and was successfully challenged in court? Or does this just express the opinion that it "should have been" unlawful because it was unjust? Is this an example thrown in by Schweik (2009) just for the general argument that Americans were mean prior to c. 1970 or is there any de facto connection to the topic? --dab (𒁳) 08:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that these laws were passed after the war and only generations later that Civil War veterans got statues built in their honor.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydniefouse (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gkrolewski (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]