Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 10

Pyle, 1998
Regarding edits like this, where WP:UNDUE is vaguely pointed to as justification for removal of material sourced to a secondary RS, UNDUE does not actually justify such edits. It states: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Where is the evidence that this review article is of so little import amongst reliable sources that it deserves no coverage whatsoever?

And if anyone wishes to claim that it is a primary source - as people did for Farber and Sherry - I will point out that editor after editor at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_American_Political_Science_Review_a_reliable_source? this] RSN discussion has said that the conclusions of the authors in a research paper analyzing election results are in fact a secondary source. So one of these sides is mistaken. Crossroads -talk- 07:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * My main reason for considering it undue weight is that Pyle is not a notable academic and does not appear to be a subject-matter expert. –– FormalDude  talk 07:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't primarily evaluate published sources based on biographical analysis of the author. Where is that policy? It's in a law journal, hence the correct subject matter expertise. Crossroads -talk- 08:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If other reliable sources have not commented on Pyle's article in the last 20-odd years, then it is unduly weighted by dint of inclusion here. It's obviously a primary source for the implied "criticism" it engages in; see WP:ALLPRIMARY. As I pointed out in my edit summary, the things Pyle is supposedly criticizing CRT for are basically a summary of common CRT themes. Ergo the citation doesn't convey any useful information to the reader. As for evidence that [the article] is of so little import amongst reliable sources, the onus is on those favoring its inclusion to show evidence for why it should remain. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC) edited 09:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in a law journal and by a legal scholar, hence by a recognized expert. I'll check for more sources later, but your view that a secondary source's analysis is makes that analysis primary, requiring yet another source to cite it, is not widely held in that discussion I linked to. WP:SECONDARY sources engage in analysis themselves. Crossroads -talk- 09:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "was published as a note in a law journal" is sufficient to make someone's opinion WP:DUE all on its own. Note that it is a note, not a peer-reviewed piece, and therefore establishes nothing but the views of its author; that means its entire weight rests on the author's expertise on the subject matter, which you don't really seem to be defending here except in the broadest sense - ie. the only way we can include it is as a way of informing the reader of Jeffrey J. Pyle's opinion, specifically. Why should the reader care what Jeffrey J. Pyle in particular thinks? --Aquillion (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Recognized by whom? Even top peer-reviewed journals publish garbage sometimes. And as Aquillion points out, this article doesn't even seem to have been peer-reviewed. Not every law professor is considered a subject-matter expert on CRT. As for the evidence, Pyle's article has been cited 70 times on Google Scholar in the past 20-plus years. Compare with, for instance, Yosso (2005), who is cited in our article and over 7,900 times on Google Scholar, or the more recent article by Gillborn (2015), cited 462 times. In the top results where I could search for Pyle's name, his critique is mentioned in passing, usually in a footnote, and not in relation to the statements attributed to him in our article. Seems highly UNDUE to me. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pyle's paper wasn't cited for his general analysis of CRT, but specifically for "criticism" of it. Otherwise why was it in the section? If we're going to imply that "criticism" exists, then we need a source directly commenting on said criticism. See WP:OR, again. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Somewhat moot now, but regarding "analysis", see WP:SECONDARY: It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Concluding that 'X is a bad set of ideas because Y' is a type of analysis. The author says it is criticism; that is not OR to say what they say. Crossroads -talk- 16:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does he that, or is that your  of what he says? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit calls this criticism: "critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the liberal legal order." In order for you to write that, you are assuming that liberalism is the only valid ideology. (And yes I am aware that liberalism in this sense includes a variety of subtypes.) But how is that a criticism when CRT is in fact based on the premise that the liberal legal order is fundamentally unfair? TFD (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source then says that includes "equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law". Some may consider that good, but the source clearly means it as a criticism. Crossroads -talk- 09:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's like saying the U.S. founding fathers have been criticized for rejecting British rule. Take your first enumerated "criticism:" that they reject equality theory. The reason they do that is explained in "Equality Theory: Equality Is Not Always Just." They replace it with vulnerability theory. Not everyone sees the world the same way you do. That's not a criticism of them. TFD (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then something can be written as, e.g., 'Liberals criticize CRT because they consider X to be undesirable as it contradicts their value of Y'. Just as we do, in fact, when discussing American history, discuss the British loyalists who opposed American independence. We are supposed to discuss the variety of views held on a topic per WP:NPOV. Crossroads -talk- 16:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is an actual suggestion or just meta-commentary. If the former, it's WP:WEASEL wording if not pure WP:OR. Who are the supposed liberals who criticize CRT in this way? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that this review article is of so little import amongst reliable sources that it deserves no coverage whatsoever? WP:ONUS sets the opposite standard; if you believe it is WP:DUE, you must demonstrate that. I'm not understanding what you see as so significant about this quote as to merit inclusion - it's from a note in a legal journal (not a peer-reviewed paper), which effectively means it serves as nothing but a statement of the author's opinion. The bar for that is relatively high, and obviously depends on exactly whose opinion is being covered and what their relevant expertise is. --Aquillion (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the approach of some editors unhelpful. Instead of reading the literature about the topic and summarizing what it says, they appear to be mining for criticisms. The incentive probably relates to an attempt by conservatives to rebrand diversity training as CRT rather than any interest in the topic. It is vital to understand a topic before editing its article. TFD (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "It is vital to understand a topic before editing its article." Not exactly a new concept. Per Competence is required:
 * Editors require the "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up." Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This was pre-existing material and I had felt that in the interests of WP:PRESERVE it was being deleted hastily. If it is true that "notes"-class items in such a journal are not peer-reviewed, then that is a better reason for removal. I certainly had no reason to suspect this article was in some separate class. WP:ASPERSIONS about conservatism or competency have no place here. Two sides can speculate on things like political motives anyway.
 * Are we at least in agreement that, as an academic school of thought, that CRT has received scholarly criticisms, and that - regardless of more specific disputes about what or what not to include - criticisms of that sort should be in the article? Crossroads -talk- 16:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what exactly you're proposing. It would be UNDUE to cram in every critique of CRT from obscure authors/journals. Perhaps naming a specific scholarly criticism would lead to more fruitful dialogue. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pyle is definitely WP:DUE. It is a reputable academic source, much more serious than, e.g. Fox News, Washington Post, and other outlets cited in the article. There has been no implication that Pyle is unreliable.
 * More to the point, Pyle was part of the article based on previous consensus. The burden of proof is to show that it should be removed.
 * Re Pyle being a subject matter expert, his criticism is based on legal principles, of which he is an expert. One need not be an expert in Creationism to argue that it violates basic principles of objective evidence and fact-based reasoning. Any scientist who uses evidence and fact-based reasoning is qualified to do so. So it is with Pyle. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * His expertise is based on him being an expert? But he doesn't need to be an expert? Which is it exactly? And are we saying that critical race theorists use fact-based reasoning? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're intentionally mis-stating the basic concept: he is a legal expert. A legal expert is an expert in what schools of thought conform and do not conform to basic legal principles. Any biologist is qualified to state that Creationism is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason. Any reliable legal scholar is qualified to make the same judgement about CRT. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RS suggests otherwise. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, based on WP:RS, he is a legal expert, and is qualified to speak about legal principles. This is why the article needs a higher level of edit protection. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on which part of WP:RS? Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. This paper was evidently not peer-reviewed, and the number and type of citations do not suggest Pyle's critique to be influential. Hence, it was not vetted by the scholarly community. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose including the text about Pyle. As put it, an opinion note by a non-notable lawyer with no specific expertise in the subject is obviously undue. I'll also ask  to please refrain from make unevidenced personal attacks  in their edit summary. –– FormalDude  Emojione 1F427.svg talk 09:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
The section "anti-semitism" was removed without sufficient discussion. It is critical to have a well-reasoned discussion about its removal. It is not necessary to remind readers about the rise of antisemitism, especially since recent attention was given to this article.

If there is criticism that the anti-semitism is just from Farber et al, there are a wealth of sources:

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=faculty_scholarship https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/critical-race-theory-aims-upend-the-civic-order https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/09/03/surge-in-antisemitism-linked-to-spread-of-critical-race-theory/ https://thejewishnews.com/2021/07/19/opinion-should-jews-support-critical-race-theory/ https://ejewishphilanthropy.com/critical-social-justice-antisemitism/ https://sapirjournal.org/social-justice/2021/05/critical-race-theory-and-the-hyper-white-jew/
 * Not a single source is reliable. What is your point? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you make that claim? Before dismissing the sources, I encourage you to read them, in particular scholarship.law.duke.edu. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A student-run law review? An American conservative think tank? Or, their mouthpiece? Some neocon news-journal, barely half-a-year old? A website covering Jewish philanthropy and whose parent organization used to have Ben Shapiro as an editor? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jerome Culp is a reputable legal scholar without any criticism of unreliability. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. Culp rejects Farber/Sherry's charges of antisemitism. What's there to see? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that The Daily Signal is an unreliable source due to its direct links with the Heritage Foundation. Anything published on The Heritage Foundation website directly would be WP:PRIMARY. I can't see any RSN discussions for The Jewish News, eJewish Philanthropy, or Sapir. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read Culp's paper? It is basically a long rebuttal to Farber & Sherry. Not two hours ago you for including Pyle's (1998) journal article on the basis that it was much more serious than, e.g. Fox News, Washington Post, and other outlets. Well, Fox and WaPo are infinitely more serious than Heritage Foundation, its Daily Signal website, and some random opinion essays. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * multiple Thanks for those links.Here's a Jewish Professor of Law calling out Farber/Sherry's charges of antisemitism as bunkum and based on outright misrepresentations or lack of nuance. And another scholar who had sympathies with Farber/Sherry yet found the allegations of anti-semitism to be completely bogus (footnote 95, p. 629). Many others agreed on this.Eventually, Farber/Sherry would claim that all these reviewers misunderstood them. They were only highlighting how CRT etc. might be serviced towards anti-semitic ends in future. Nobody associated with CRT or CRT itself was anti-semitic.TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All that being said, if I catch you (DenverCoder9) editing without competence and misrepresenting scholars, sanctions won't be far. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're confusing criticism of a theory and ad-hominem against the authors. I'm not going to waste time responding to talk given repeated mis-interpretation of basic editing rules. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think any editor here has violated basic editing rules, feel free to take it to the relevant noticeboard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not against basic editing rules to make wild claims. Nor do we need to respond to them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you're confusing WP:PRIMARY. It is acceptable to quote a primary source as evidence for the statement "X source stated..." DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is somewhat irrelevant because WP:PRIMARY still need to be WP:RELIABLE and at least two of those sources are not reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , this entire episode with Sherry and anti-semitism—where multiple authors accused others in cycles, of not understanding their point—highlights the perils of using primary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean we should, though. See WP:WEIGHT. Why should readers care what these random people think about CRT? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Heritage, while conservative, is as notable as Brookings, which is cited liberally throughout articles about post-1992 US Politics. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCONTENT. And a false equivalence. Brookings Institution is mainly centrist nowadays. And they do actual academic research, unlike Heritage, whose "scholars" publish pure propaganda. Heritage, like other conservative think tanks, was in fact created to counter Brookings' fact-based policy positions, which happened to challenge conservative dogma. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, if no other editors will speak up, there is no need to include these sources. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's clear from Farber and Sherry's reply, "Beyond all Criticism" (1999), that their analysis of CRT has received little support, particularly their claim that applying the theory to the success of Jews in the U.S. could lead to anti-Semitic conclusions. That goes directly to weight: we cannot give a high level of prominence to a criticism that represents a tiny minority of critics.
 * I found one of the criticisms of CRT to be strange. On pp. 1762-1763, Farber & Sherry criticize CRT because it warns of the tyranny of the majority, that is, that in a democratic system, unconstrained by constitutional protection of individual rights, a majority can deprive a minority of their rights. Farber & Sherry conclude that CRT is therefore anti-democratic. But the same criticism applies to liberalism itself, including the U.S. constitution.
 * TFD (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


Gives a brief overview of CRT. Could be useful for building the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions
The paragraph "In his introduction to the comprehensive 1995 publication of critical race theory's key writings, Cornel West describes CRT as "an intellectual movement that is both particular to our postmodern (and conservative) times and part of a long tradition of human resistance and liberation."" is missing a citation which it should have as per Wikipedia guidance 109.152.214.115 (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed now. Seems whomever wrote that missed a part of the citation tag. I'm not sure what page that specific quote appears on though and a quick Google search doesn't turn up an ebook version with searchable text unfortunately. But it should be visible now. Fixed now. Found the page number. Seems whomever wrote that missed a part of the citation tag. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC) edited Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Britannica
Why is a paragraph sourced, in entirety, from a tertiary source? We have Cabrera (2018) which is very recent and highly cited. WP:BRITANNICA says, Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd direct you to the discussion at Talk:Critical_race_theory in the first instance, as that seems to be where it was added/discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume I would know that since it was started by me? Britannica was not the main focus of that discussion and the thread achieved its intended results. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I was focusing on the question only and didn't consider who was asking it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * RSP is technically an essay page, and there has never an RfC on Britannica, so there isn't much consensus for that claim. How many of these editors are there? Was it just a couple at one or two of the 13 discussions? What policy or guideline are they basing their conclusions on? WP:PSTS is what we should be going by. That states, for instance, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source...Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight. Crossroads -talk- 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is better not to use it. One of the advantages of Wikipedia over EB is that Wikipedia articles provide sources which readers can look at and continue their research. Using EB as a source removes this advantage. TFD (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with this. The Britannica entry as cited, does not give any citations for the claims that it's making. It's stating a number of things as fact, with no easy way to verify it. We can and should do better. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the same apply to, say, the Washington Post or any other news source? Why single out EB for this? What policy is this requirement based on? Crossroads -talk- 18:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree. I'm particularly concerned that - and this seems like it's come up before when citing tertiary sources - we're essentially pulling one paragraph from that source out of context and focusing entirely on it, while using it for nothing else, which gives the impression that the source was chosen specifically because someone wanted to have criticism in the lead and it happened to contain it. We can use tertiary sources to guide due weight, but that means looking at the entire source in its full context rather than including or excluding stuff based entirely on our own opinions - and in its entire context the focus here seems WP:UNDUE, especially compared to how other (more specialized and therefore more specific) sources treat the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Tertiary sources and how they criticize CRT

 * User:Crossroads has a liking for tertiary sources. So do I:
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * How many of them contain a section on criticism? I am off to evaluating. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should look for discussing criticism, not necessarily having a section dedicated solely to it. Our article may differ organizationally from some just as they differ from each other. The source by Delgado and Stefancic are by major proponents of CRT itself, and the last one listed says that CRT is "indispensable" for education, so some of these are explicitly promoting the school of thought - this is something to factor in per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We do need to include the scholarly critiques of this academic school of thought, same as we do for any other. Crossroads -talk- 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stefancic himself mentions criticism. Unlike most of the others. But, whatever suits you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that Ansell (2008) also has a section on "Attracting controversy", which is already summarized here under . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * NIL.
 * How many of them contain a section on criticism? I am off to evaluating. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should look for discussing criticism, not necessarily having a section dedicated solely to it. Our article may differ organizationally from some just as they differ from each other. The source by Delgado and Stefancic are by major proponents of CRT itself, and the last one listed says that CRT is "indispensable" for education, so some of these are explicitly promoting the school of thought - this is something to factor in per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We do need to include the scholarly critiques of this academic school of thought, same as we do for any other. Crossroads -talk- 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stefancic himself mentions criticism. Unlike most of the others. But, whatever suits you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that Ansell (2008) also has a section on "Attracting controversy", which is already summarized here under . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NIL.
 * How many of them contain a section on criticism? I am off to evaluating. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You should look for discussing criticism, not necessarily having a section dedicated solely to it. Our article may differ organizationally from some just as they differ from each other. The source by Delgado and Stefancic are by major proponents of CRT itself, and the last one listed says that CRT is "indispensable" for education, so some of these are explicitly promoting the school of thought - this is something to factor in per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. We do need to include the scholarly critiques of this academic school of thought, same as we do for any other. Crossroads -talk- 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stefancic himself mentions criticism. Unlike most of the others. But, whatever suits you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that Ansell (2008) also has a section on "Attracting controversy", which is already summarized here under . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stefancic himself mentions criticism. Unlike most of the others. But, whatever suits you. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that Ansell (2008) also has a section on "Attracting controversy", which is already summarized here under . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but I am interested in academic criticism. Crossroads, shall I start adding standard textbooks of legal sociology taught in USA/UK/Dutch universities? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want. Regarding that "Attracting controversy" section in the Ansell tertiary source, I can't view all of it, but it doesn't seem to present it as "political" controversy. Why is Ansell under that heading rather than the academic one? What source supports that this is political and not academic? Crossroads -talk- 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Description of 'standpoint epistemology' doesn't align with the reference provided
In the 'Common Themes' section, 'Standpoint Epistemology' is described as "The view that a member of a minority has an authority and ability to speak about racism that members of other racial groups do not have...". This interpretation that authority is only held by members of that group is not supported by the reference provided (Critical Race Theory by Amy Ansell ) On page 345, Adams describes 'Standpoint Epistemology' as "The view that a person of minority status has a competence and authority to speak about racism unmatched by those of a different racial status". At no point in this description is the presence of some amount of competence and authority, on the part of someone of different racial status, ruled out. It seems to suggest that those of the minority group are much better placed to speak about racism but not that those of other groups have no authority whatsoever. 31.201.66.124 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's about spin. Suppose someone wrote that liberal academics have an authority and ability to speak about conservative voters that those voters do not have. The reality is that while being a member of a group does not make one an authority, it does give one a perspective that should be listened to. TFD (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think this is a reasonable concern, although I don't think that the current wording implies "only". "Unmatched" does imply that there is a competence and authority that "those of a different racial status" do not have; does "do not have" refer to the entirety of the authority or to the *delta* between the authority of a minority group member and the authority of others? Really, we should cite more scholars on standpoint epistemology, which has many good tertiary sources available iirc. I hope you don't mind, I also inserted a reflist-talk template below your comment. Suriname0 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation to that supports Ansell's evaluation, albeit in the area of education rather than law. It says personal narratives from members of minority groups are "assumed as well as privileged" and become "the point of departure for understanding racial dynamics in schools and society", while not always being "the end point of dialogue". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Relationship of CRT to systemic racism, housing discrimination, school segregation, redlining, and inequality
My edit of 9 November 2021 was reverted by editors Sangdebeouf and TrangaBella for reasons that were unclear. I fail to see how my edit was in any way controversial or vague, as I feel it succinctly and clearly summarized key aspects of Critical Race Theory. The purpose if this article is to present what CRT is, not to evaluate its veracity. Please specify in what way my edit was vague or POV- it seems that the statements therein line up very well with very basic stances of CRT. If you can find anything in it with which an average proponent of CRT would disagree, I would be willing have it removed- as it stands, I have seen no reason why it should be. In fact, removal of it seems to be based more upon a desire to NOT have the basic tenets of CRT be understood, rather than to have them explicated, which is the purpose of this article. Tomabird (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The statment removed was: "Highlights" could mean anything, and "devastating" is an opinion.  It would be helpful to add to the relevant sections of the article body a more detailed description of  CRT highlights these issues, and  exactly characterizes them as devastating, before adding this to the lead section. The American Bar Association blog is not a scholarly source, and the Democracy & Education source looks like an editorial or opinion piece. Based on these sources the material is WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok- why not make those changes instead of simply reverting? I will try to follow your advice, though, and thank you for your suggestions Tomabird (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because these sources do not support a neutral addition to the article IMO. Inequality is already mentioned. The above material makes exceptional claims that require exceptional sourcing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical Pedagogy
The critical form of activism-as-education is known as Critical pedagogy and should be referenced in this article.
 * Why? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is there so little content on this subject?
My graduate studies from 2015-2017 were grounded in CRT. It completely changed the way I think. Why is this Wikipedia link so short? 76.115.20.106 (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your expert contributions to this article are most welcome! Additional sources and description (feel free to be WP:BOLD) are how Wikipedia articles are built! Suriname0 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems that even when people add content with citations, their contributions are quickly reverted for reasons that are unclear Tomabird (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, everybody. If you revert somebody's WP:Bold addition or emendation, please tell why. It seems that some editors are evincing WP:ownership of this article. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Catchall term
Up to now, the WP article has been fighting an old battle. CRT has taken on a new meaning to many people. That's why I added this quote from the L.A. Times, to bring our article into the mainstream of discussion. "The term has 'morphed into a catch-all phrase by conservatives to oppose certain subjects taught in schools.'" We have to keep this idea in the article, and up pretty high for our treatment of CRT to make sense to the reader, in my opinion. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a bit like saying the term phone has taken on the new meaning of 'handheld digital computer', so we should re-write the Telephone article to bring it "into the mainstream of discussion". Wikipedia doesn't take part in debates or discussions; we summarize debates that have been published in high-quality sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the L.A. Times quotation; it is a high-quality source. It brings something new to the article which has not been in there heretofore. Let's talk about why it should or should not be there. WP:3rr.Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See : Conservative lawmakers and activists have used the term "critical race theory" as a "catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism", according to The Washington Post. That's a lot more informative than "certain subjects taught in schools". This properly belongs in the section on political backlash. Since it is the definition used by a minority, It's unduly weighted in the general section. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While conservatives are using the term CRT as a catch-all for any teaching about race, they beleive that race teachings all derive from CRT and is part of a broader plot by [you know who they are] to undermine Western civilization and the republic God established to defend it. In that sense, they have not changed the meaning of the term, just saw CRT where it did not exist. TFD (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD is exactly right. –– FormalDude  talk 06:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the claim that "conservatives" (which I take to mean American conservatives in general) go so far as to say CRT "is part of a broader plot by [you know who they are] to undermine Western civilization and the republic God established to defend it", got any reliable sources for that claim? Or is this just talk page signaling? Crossroads -talk- 07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable? No, of course not. Anyone making that claim is certainly not going to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. But I could link you a multitude of Fox News/OANN/Newsmax articles. –– FormalDude  talk 07:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I obviously meant reliable sources saying that what TFD described is the view of American conservatives in general. Crossroads -talk- 07:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They probably meant Republicans rather than conservatives. –– FormalDude  talk 07:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * See the article by CRT expert David Theo Goldberg, "The War on Critical Race Theory." He uses the term conservative to describe Republicans, British Conservatives, Australian Liberals and the extreme right who attack CRT. He quotes the Heritage Foundation as claiming that CRT is “the rejection of the underpinnings of Western civilization" and “seeks to undermine the foundations of American society." While he says that the term has become a "catch-all" and these critics are mostly "uninformed," he also says their intention is to link diversity training with Marxism. In other words, they are referring to actual CRT but falsely claiming diversity training is part of it.
 * This is nothing new. Reactionaries have long attempted to discredit any calls for social progress as part of a grand conspiracy. As the article points out, they cannot imagine that oppressed people might originate calls for equality themselves.
 * TFD (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure at this point. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Quantitative, data-based, reproducible CRT examples
How many studies along the lines of and  provide good examples of less anecdote-based, more empirical CRT? Would someone please include those? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with "objective studies of CRT" is that CRT proponents formulate claims that cannot be tested. They explicitly deny "logic" as racist. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the track record of Aristotelian logic (and subsequent formal logic in the Anglosphere and elsewhere) in supporting imperialism and colonialism is reasonably strong. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ...they said, as they engaged in what would have looked like magic to their ancestors by transmitting words viewable by people on the other side of the planet, all to build an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge, and only made possible by machines that run on logic.
 * Of course, cultures outside the influence of Aristotle never engaged in imperialism. The track record of group-based thinking, cultural relativism, and subjective narratives is clearly much better. Crossroads -talk- 22:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you decry logic as imperialist, there is no way one can engage in a meaningful discussion with someone who will not accept basic logic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To humour this tangent a little longer: there are multiple families of logic just as there are multiple families of other rhetorics or conceptual technologies (and for that matter, multiple imperialisms). If there has been any dispute about which logics serve rising systems of domimination the best, a quick glance at what the CCP is doing will usually suffice. And anyone who insists that "there is only one logic, it is what I define as logic, and nothing else is worth listening to" - the shorthand for that being "monological thinking" - is unlikely to have the capacities required to participate in a collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. The topic of CRT is not required to meet any users' personal threshold of logic or empiricism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am noting that it does not make sense to search for "objective" studies because CRT's own proponents criticize "objectivity" as racist. One might as well ask for objective studies of Creationism. This is a statement about the user's search for sources, which is relevant on a talk page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone object to the inclusion of those sources? I'd like to summarize them with the statement, "Racism is likely systemic." 2601:647:4D00:2C40:0:0:0:75DA (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the provided sources are about critical race theory. If there are other empirical academic sources using or discussing Critical Race Theory that are not included in the article already, I encourage any reader to WP:BEBOLD and WP:FIXIT. Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that, "Neither of the provided sources are about critical race theory," is plainly false. Both are about Critical Race Theory, and both tend to be in support of the proposed edit. do you have any evidence in support of your position? Friedman on the lifeboat (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to respond to this? Neither of the sources uses the term "critical race theory", cites sources based in the critical race theory tradition, nor is authored by scholars associated with critical race theory. It is plainly true that both articles are about race. Anyway, this isn't my area of expertise, but notably neither Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, nor Jennifer Doleac and Luke Stein mention critical race theory in their bios. Why do you think these articles are related to critical race theory? Suriname0 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We would need sources which explain and link these findings in the context of CRT, because neither one does it on its own. (And as a social scientist trained in qualitative methods, please remember that quantitative methods have no monopoly on "truth.") NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that we need sources saying that the EEOC and others' decoy resume studies and Stanford and others' skin color advertisement response studies explicitly are CRT, or merely that they meet the definition given in the article summary here? As for the relative value of quantitative methods, the article already reflects the complaints that CRT is invalid because it lacks quantitative support. How can you test the falsifiability of a hypothesis qualitatively? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What happened in September, 2020?
According to Google Trends, CRT was virtually unknown until the first five days of September, 2020. Any idea what event precipitated its entry into public consciousness? 71.204.166.188 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it's already in the article: a Trump Executive Order, spurred by Christopher Rufo on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show. 71.204.166.188 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Joan Braune referring to CRT as a conspiracy theory
Joan Braune refers to CRT as a conspiracy theory in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmmhJoRdlhw

I'm going to assume she's talking about the claims around CRT that conservatives and conspiracy theorists make. But I was wonder what other editors thought of this. Do you think there will one day be a CRT page, and a CRT conspiracy page? Anyways, just thought I'd point out that it's out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.113.170 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022
The acronym LDF is nowhere defined in this article. 99pkn (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Definition added by here:  --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taiowhite01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022
Change: "Gloria Ladson-Billings, who—along with co-author William Tate—had introduced CRT to the field of education in 1995,[23] described CRT it as an-" To:

Gloria Ladson-Billings, who—along with co-author William Tate—had introduced CRT to the field of education in 1995,[23] described it as an-" OR

Gloria Ladson-Billings, who—along with co-author William Tate—had introduced CRT to the field of education in 1995,[23] described CRT as an-"

The issue being, "CRT it" is referring to the same thing twice and is grammatically incorrect. 73.97.194.99 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed that bit, the sentence could still lose the emdashes. ~ cygnis insignis 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

repetition of phrase
I saw a report somewhere, perhaps on Planet America, about the repetition of this phrase on Fox newstainment programs. The article does mention the intersect with President Trump's actions, but I hoped to find some more analysis of Fox's blatant saturation of reports with this new and ill-defined terror. ~ cygnis insignis 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doucereuse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Critical Philosophy of Race
From the source cited:" Critical Philosophy of Race has a distinctive philosophical methodology primarily drawing from critical theory, Marxism, pragmatism, phenomenology, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, and hermeneutics" -- from this I conclude that CPR is an unbelievably mixed and boiled piece of crock. Since there is no Wikipedia article, with neutral coverage, I don't think it merits mentioning here, and in a separate section, too. I suggest removing it. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Alternatively, the above definition is a piece of crock, hence a better refernce must be used. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:JDL. And the expression is "bunch of crock" or "crock of shit", a crock being a piece of pottery used for cooking. Just FYI. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I Whatever you say, you understood me, right: :-) Anyway thx for a bit of English lesson. I simply didn want to write the fisrt words that came to my mmind "piece of bulls...t"Loew Galitz (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead
Lead could use some work. I find it to be unclear. to interrogate the role, how does one interrogate a role? value-neutral U.S. laws, what is a "value-neutral law"? What are CRT's core tenets? (these should be defined clearly in the first paragraph, arguably even the first sentence since "theory" is in the title). In my opinion, in the lead, the definition of what CRT is should come before its history. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the name, CRT isn't necessarily a "theory", nor must it have "core tenets" at all. As I understand it, CRT is an academic movement and an approach to intellectual and legal analysis: more of a "how" than a "what", so to speak. Open to suggestions for making this clearer in the lead. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this whole article is (perhaps stemming from the name itself) is logically confusing. If "Critical race theory" is a movement (as the lead sentence currently says), we should always treat it as a moment. If it is a "framework of analysis" as the lead also says, we should always clearly differentiate between the framework and the movement behind it. At the moment the article switches back-n-forth between using "CRT" as a noun for the movement and as noun for a set of ideas, often without warning from context. Just confusing overall. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The article lacks any discussion of the policies that should flow from adopting CRT and their consequences. 2A00:23C8:4D83:2C00:883C:4CEC:F27D:9349 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Taught as a course
"Although the phrase “critical race theory” refers to an area of academic study, its common usage has diverged from its exact meaning.(from above)"

--I think it should be clarified that CRT is taught as a "semester long course", with a textbook and quizzes and tests to lawyers in lawschool. Some Private High Schools may offer this college course, or have a "guest lecturer", but it is generally not a part of a curriculum for public schools. Some general topics from the course, related to race, might be briefly discussed in primary education.

Similar to Thermodynamics being only for Mechanical Engineers, a Physics teacher might mention the "Law of thermodynamics". But there is a difference between sharing a definition, and reading a 200 page book as a course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I think the content people refer to as "CRT" in high schools are vastly different from actual content of this field being studied in law school? C933103 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

On the partial RV
I understand some of the source are not neutral, but the purpose of the additional paragraph was not to cite argument presented inside them, rather, they are to shows that the topic have been bought up for discussion in those countries. C933103 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then per WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, please cite reliable, secondary sources that are independent of said discussions, rather than opinion essays that are merely examples of astroturfed controversy. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Suggest removing the reference to conservative lawmakers. This sentence is not correct. Conservatives and non-conservatives have gone against CRT. 2601:5CB:C301:5B0:DCD4:3A97:DA32:500A (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WAPO article about state laws blocking the teaching of CRT in universities
Doug Weller talk 12:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is a non-opinion one that might be more useful. In particular it provides secondary coverage and analysis of the criticism it has attracted in a way that we currently mostly lack: Although the phrase “critical race theory” refers to an area of academic study, its common usage has diverged from its exact meaning. Conservative activists and politicians now use the term as a catchall phrase for nearly any examination of systemic racism in the present. Critical race theory is often portrayed as the basis of race-conscious policies, diversity trainings and education about racism, regardless of how much the academic concept actually affects those efforts. --Aquillion (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

-- I dont think its a "common opinion" at all. At least in the field where the term has any meaning. Trying to rewrite a half century of research because some glue eating right wing activists decided to make shit up is a terrible thing to inflict on wikipedia or the people trying to make heads and tails of it all. Duckmonster (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And you are being any different. Wiki is supposed to be impartial.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:81D:6777:B006:DBF4 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that within the relevant fields the term continues to hold its original meaning. But it has entered common parlance via right-wing pundits and politicians, and subsequent news media coverage, and we would be doing our readers a disservice not to describe what they mean by CRT, and how it diverges from the actual meaning. Part of me is beginning to think a split would be in order here, though, since the 2020s usage and controversy in the US is notable in its own right, and also a very different thing from CRT. I'll float the idea in a new section below. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Now in the OED
This term was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in March 2022. Their definition : "(originally U.S. Law) a movement or theoretical approach within jurisprudence which holds that racial bias is inherent to the justice system as a result of its basis in beliefs and practices that benefit white people; (now also more generally) a theoretical framework for examining the influence of racial bias on social and cultural institutions and practices." Equinox ◑ 20:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ban or restrict the instruction of CRT (along with other anti‑racism education) in primary and secondary schools,[9][22]
I heard on the news that a politician wanted to ban CRT from schools. I did not know what that meant, so I came to wikipedia. The phrase "along with other anti-racism education" seems redundant of the broad topic of CRT.

Suggestion: Remove the words "along with other anti-racism education"

--- The references nine and 22 are about CRT and not other anti-racism education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:5700:9400:0:0:0:3 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Per ref #9: "At least five Republican-led state legislatures have passed bans on critical race theory or related topics".See : In mid-April 2021, a bill was introduced in the Idaho Legislature that would effectively ban any educational entity from teaching or advocating "sectarianism", including critical race theory or other programs involving social justice. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of races
This article capitalises “White [people]” as well as “Black [people]”. Is there any basis for either on Wikipedia, in the MOS for example? TrottieTrue (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. MOS:RACECAPS specifies that capitalization is acceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks - seems to be quite inconsistently applied though. Maybe in this article it makes sense. TrottieTrue (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of races
This article capitalises “White [people]” as well as “Black [people]”. Is there any basis for either on Wikipedia, in the MOS for example? TrottieTrue (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. MOS:RACECAPS specifies that capitalization is acceptable. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks - seems to be quite inconsistently applied though. Maybe in this article it makes sense. TrottieTrue (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Common Themes is largely single primary source and synthetic from Crenshaw
Common Themes depends way too heavily on Delgado & Stefancic ,and Crenshaw

- Richard Delgado one of several "founders" of Critical Race Theory and his and his wife Stefancic make up the bulk of citaitons here.

- Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw is invoked despite the cited work predating the coining of the term Critical Race Theory, and no subsequent attribution relating the two. It is unclear whether Crenshaw supports these definitions or is being shoehorned in so it seems like there is a secondary source. Specifically CRT seems to be circa 1993-1995 from lead, but the crenshaw citations are from 1988, and there is no subsequent work by Crenshaw which adopts these definitions, they are just invoked in a synthetic way to try and lend credence to what is said. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

add a link for the cathode ray rube article
Since crt can also stand for cathode-ray tube, I think it would be a good idea to add a link at the top of the page like other Wikipedia articles do with similarly-named articles. AdustKitten237 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not necessary, since the disambiguation page CRT exists. Highly unlikely that a reader following a link to this page will think "CRT" means "cathode-ray tube" in this context. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)