Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Academic criticism

I am inclined to accept NI's arguments that we need recent sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That argument is special pleading. Are we also going to expunge all the pro-CRT sources older than 2000? That would be unnecessary, since there is no evidence any of the tenets have changed over this time. It is POV to expunge this per WP:LEAD. Do people think that because CRT is a culture war topic now, it is somehow above criticism?

Nevertheless, I just added one source, of which there are others, just by checking Google Scholar's "since 2017" search feature. Some of the overview sources already in the article doubtless go over this as well. The fact that the criticisms that were removed continue to be cited in new papers to this day shows their continuing relevance and WP:DUEness. Pretending that academic criticism doesn't exist, only political opposition, is just... it's clearly POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I also just added reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica, last updated in 2021. So, no, it is not the case that, say, since the 1990s everyone has come to see the Truth of critical race theory. And the fact that an actual professional encyclopedia covers this is excellent precedent for us doing so. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am quite aware that CRT has its criticism. However, it is not the case that the ones currently mentioned in lead are the most prominent ones.

You added Nolan Cabrera's article (first hit in GScholar) but have you even bothered to read it? He offers a very different criticism from what is currently mentioned in the line. And, such criticisms of CRT are what dominates in current academia. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, my point was not that since the 1990s everyone has come to see the Truth of critical race theory - which is an absurd straw person - but that the article needs to cite recent RS commentary. In case you missed it, the reason the pro-CRT sources older than 2000 are due for inclusion is that recent RS commentators cite them as significant. If you can find recent RS that do the same for material from critical (mostly primary) sources by 1990s jurists, then Bob's your uncle. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of that about Cabrera, but his article shows that the ones that were removed by another editor are not just old 1990s stuff that we can sweep aside; they are still relevant to academic discourse (or as they put it, "recent RS commentators cite them as significant"). TrangaBellam's claim that the criticisms in the lead are not the "most prominent" ones at present is unsupported. In any case, nothing says more cannot be added.

TrangaBellam inexplicably removed a recent tertiary source. [1] Why? This shows the WP:DUEness of the material. I hope this does not pave the way to people claiming again it is not supported enough. Many other "recent RS commentators" cite Farber and Sherry, and Pyle, as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of that about Cabrera - so, why are you improperly citing him? Spamming references?

Britannica is a poor source. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not improperly citing him. As I said, it shows that "recent RS commentators cite [the 1990s criticisms] as significant", and is a review article (aka a secondary source). And your assertion that Britannica is a poor source is entirely unsupported and I have never heard of it in my time on Wikipedia - quite the opposite. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRITANNICA says, Most editors prefer reliable secondary sources over the Encyclopædia Britannica when available. There is no consensus on its usability etc.

I will be waiting for the upcoming updates to the entry on CRT in Oxford Research Enclyopedia.

Anyways, you wrote that of which there are others, just by checking Google Scholar's "since 2017" search feature. Can you provide a few more peer-reviewed articles to the same effect? TIA, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird, but it also says, "The Encyclopædia Britannica (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online) is a tertiary source with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And this is a staff article. Per the content policies, then, it is a reliable tertiary source. Unless those editors have a good reason for that preference, that can be disregarded. And the highlighting color carries little weight since, without an RfC, those are decided very subjectively by whichever editor(s) happen to be paying attention to RSP, and their interpretations. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We cannot pick and choose from a RSP entry.

Just to be clear, I don't support removing the current line out of lead, as of now. I will wait it out till the updated ORE entry is published - do you agree that ORE is more reliable than Britannica? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

To get back to Cabrera, his article does not refer to the 1990s jurists whose primary source claims I removed in this edit, nor does he refer to Pyle. The passages citing Farber & Sherry - in their entirety - are as follows. There have been several critiques of CRT for not offering testable hypotheses or measurable outcomes, while treating narrative as a form of data (e.g., Farber, & Sherry, 1997; Kennedy, 1989). These critiques have been rebutted by Crits as representing the dominant social science paradigm, which only served to marginalize People of Color (e.g., Ball, 1990; Barnes, 1990; Crenshaw, 2002; Delgado, 1990; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Espinoza, 1990) (p. 213), and When faced with constant ideologically driven criticism for engaging the subject of racism (e.g., Farber & Sherry, 1997; Horowitz, 2006; McWhorter, 2000; Shapiro, 2012, March 11) it is difficult to entertain this possibility (p. 228). That's it. In this context, I do not find Crossroads interpretation - that the paper shows that recent RS commentators cite Farber & Sherry as significant - to be at all credible in making the lead section material I removed from the lead to be DUE for inclusion. (Cabrera does, of course, point to recent and more relevant critics who might be usable in the article). Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

ORE is great, no dispute from me there. Newimpartial, you are arguing that a 2018 review article (secondary source) that cites Farber & Sherry and notes their main points somehow does not add any weight for inclusion by us. And all this while nobody complains about the article citing decades-old writing by CRT proponents themselves - only for critics is there need to be super recent and to jump through all these hoops regarding citations of the criticisms. This is special pleading. You asked for "recent RS commentators [that] cite them as significant", and you got it. Please stop moving the goalposts. Check Google Scholar for yourself, there are tons of citations to these papers even recently. That shows use by others and WP:Due weight. I am not interested in debating this endlessly. We are not going to WP:WHITEWASH this topic (pun not intended), and certainly not because two political factions have decided to paint this topic as either the devil or as sacred and unquestionable. And if it hadn't been for that, no one would be making these extraordinary demands about needing more and more sources that are citing the original scholarly criticisms are though they are not good enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have provided the entire "discussion" related to Farber & Sherry in the article. Compared to other critics of CRT, such as Kennedy, Cabrera does not pay much attention to F & S, so it is some kind of (awkward) cherrypicking for you to argue that this review article makes this older source DUE. And I don't see how you can make a DUE argument based on a Google Scholar search, particularly when the actual text of the review article is available, so you can see how the scholar actually attributes significance within the literature. If you don't have time to read the sources you insert as citations - for content and not by text search - then you may not have time to make a helpful contribution to editing this article.

As far as nobody complains about the article citing decades-old writing by CRT proponents themselves, that's because the highest-quality recent RS - notably the ones cited in this article - explicitly assert their influence. This isn't a matter of counting Google Scholar hits, you know.

And finally, I'll point out that my interest in this topic goes back to writing intersectionality papers back in the last century, and isn't at all related to two political factions deciding to paint this topic as either the devil or as sacred and unquestionable. But bad sources are bad sources, old sources are old sources, and lazy citation is lazy citation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And our article's discussion of Farber and Sherry is about as long as that review article's. And they attribute importance accordingly: These critiques have been rebutted by Crits as representing the dominant social science paradigm... Sounds pretty DUE to me when even the CRT proponents admit it's the mainstream view (they do go on to claim the mainstream view marginalizes people of color, because of course they do, but that doesn't negate the WP:MAINSTREAM). Since you claim "the highest-quality recent RS - notably the ones cited in this article - explicitly assert their influence" about the CRT proponents' sources, then how about demonstrating this by replacing the sources that are CRT proponents with sources by others that cite and discuss in sufficient depth the statements of CRT proponents, and then we'll do the same with the sources that are CRT critics. Or, we can admit this is unnecessary and that both proponents and critics are DUE. Your choice. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And regarding this, how exactly is "specialists" in this sense distinct from "proponents"? Everyone there is an expert in the field of law. Also, "Academics and jurists" is a more accurate heading. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as non-specialist criticism is concerned, q.v. The discussion of James Lindsay in archive 7. We can't just divide up the world into "proponents" and "opponents", and force some kind of balance between them - in considering the reliability and weight of sources, we have to consider their publication records and areas of expertise. Mathematicians and tort law scholars who have never contributed to, e.g., human rights law and related fields, are unlikely to be RS when it comes to scholarship on the topic of this article.

As an aside, if you can't tell the difference between "mainstream" and "dominant paradigm", then you didn't read Kuhn very carefully in school.:p Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Our article's discussion of Farber and Sherry is about as long as that review article's. In that case we're giving them undue weight, since our job is to summarize reliable sources. As I stated previously, directly citing critics of CRT instead of disinterested secondary and tertiary sources unbalances the article toward the critics. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And why doesn't this apply to directly citing CRT proponents? Why does it only apply to critics? It isn't "too long" because we are summarizing Farber and Sherry etc. just like those sources do. How could we possibly "summarize" them further without expunging critics entirely and turning the article into a puff piece? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

And your own comment also states, We have that in the form of numerous sholarly references such as journal articles, an academic encyclopedia, and Britannica, among other sources. That's what I agree with and am citing. You were replying to someone wanting to cite pundits like James Lindsay, which I am against. You were also apparently against citing critics directly, but as I said, that cuts both ways.

Perhaps those advocating against critical text would like to explain how they would address academic criticism of CRT in the body and the lead, rather than just reverting or complaining about other editors' work. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, not a secondary source. Our job is to summarize reliable, secondary sources. Not to summarize the primary sources just like secondary sources do. Farber & Sherry et al. are primary sources for their own "criticism" of CRT. I'm not sure where we cite any proponents of CRT in the context of CRT's academic reception. The numerous references to CRT scholars like Delgado & Stefancic are fine when it comes to basic description of the tenets of CRT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is there allegedly a higher standard for describing criticisms of CRT than for its tenets? I know of no policy supporting such a double standard. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Because Delgado & Stefancic's later writings are still secondary sources regarding the themes of CRT. The book by Farber & Sherry where they criticize CRT is a primary source for said criticism. Ideally we would only use independent sources, but the basic description by Delgado & Stefancic seems mostly uncontroversial. Feel free to suggest a better source, though. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroad's edit was, "Academic critics of CRT argue that CRT relies on social constructionism, elevates storytelling over evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism." First, this is weasel-wording. It implies that there is consensus among scholars in rejecting CRT in the sames sense tht there is academic consensus in rejecting intelligent design. Second, it's not clear that all of this is criticism, rather than description.

Compare this "criticism" with what CRT proponents actually say: CRT "questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law." (Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, p. 3.)[2] In other words, what Crossroads considers to be criticism is in fact close to how CRT proponents describe their theory. The fact they may not share one editor's viewpoint is not in itself a criticism.

That may be why Southern conservatives confuse CRT and diversity training. They believe that there is a hidden socialist agenda in saying there is racism in America and the "1619 Project" is crypto-socialist. The difference is that while CRT blames liberalism for racism, liberals deny responsibility for it. That is a significant difference.

TFD (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

1619 project is completely off-topic here. And a lot of people in America whom our discourse designates as "liberal" (though they may not be that classically liberal) loudly proclaim their belief in white complicity in systemic racism, etc. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Also, which word in that text is WP:WEASEL? I myself have been told that such appeals to WEASEL are not appropriate. And those sources cited there are specifically about criticism. They do not say the same things as proponents. Proponents argue for X, and critics say X is bad because it leads to Y. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL says, "Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view." One example provided was "scientists claim," which is similar to your wording "academic critics argue." In both cases the impression is that a large number of people support that view but it does not explicitly say so. It could be two experts or all experts. The except is that you may use the term "some scientists if that is how it is phrased in the source: "views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions." The assumption is that "some scientists" means a material number of scientists. I did't read you entire link, but it appears you were discussing the term "controversial." That is not a weasel word but must be sourced, i.e., Wikipedia editors must not themselves determine what is controversial.

The 1619 project is certainly on topic because it was what was added to the curriculum that Southern conservatives called CRT and that triggered the ban on teaching CRT.

There should be no confusion in the meaning of liberalism here. It means support of constitutional government and protection of defined rights such as those in the U.S. constitution. Liberals claim that racism violates this framework, while CRT advocates say that the framework actually creates racism. Southern conservatives confuse these two positions. It is probably because they do not think that what are now called liberals in the U.S. are really liberals but are crypto-socialists and hence do not believe in the U.S. constitution.

Do you think that the "1619 Project" is CRT?

TFD (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The 1619 Project is distinct from CRT, but both it and the popularized form of CRT are part of the 'progressive' discourse on race these days, and conservatives (not just southern ones if you ask me) erroneously call all of the latter CRT. But this seems to be veering off into forum discussion. "Scientists claim" is not equivalent to "academic critics argue" because the latter is specifically about academic critics, and as opposed to the political critics, the aforementioned conservatives. Britannica does support that about academic critics, and besides, I don't think there is a better way to describe it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) What do you mean by progressive, and (2) what is taught in schools that is "CRT inspired?" TFD (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

What is a secondary source?

WP:SECONDARY states, A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

Does anyone deny that this describes sources like Farber & Sherry and Pyle? They are secondary sources on the topic of critical race theory. The demands for extensive, lengthy citation and discussion of these sources by third parties before they can be used is going far beyond our actual policies. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If we're just citing them for any old statement about CRT, then they could be used as secondary sources (assuming they're generally reliable). But they were specifically cited as examples of criticism of CRT. If we're going to write about criticism, then we need secondary sources specifically about criticism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is going beyond policy. We don't need "secondary-of-secondary" or tertiary sources to report the "author's own thinking"; that's part of the secondary source. That's how it works when citing all sorts of academic review articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to cite the author's own thinking (whether such thinking is duly weighted is a separate issue). But to label it "criticism" requires an additional source calling it criticism. Anything less is original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, the Farber & Sherry book isn't an academic review article - it is a nonspecialist, original criticism of (what was then an) emerging academic tradition. In the discussion of the only "academic review article" dealing with Kathleen Stock, you insist that it is PRIMARY, but when it comes to nonspecialists attacking CRT in book form (and in much less balanced term than the article dealing with Stock), you insist that it is SECONDARY. What-the-what? Newimpartial (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop bringing up completely irrelevant articles (where the actual equivalent would be if I was arguing that, say, Pyle could be cited as a factual description of CRT). I didn't mean to imply Farber & Sherry was an academic review article - although Pyle is, and F & S are an academic book. And all of them are legal experts - stop tarring anyone who isn't a CRT proponent as a "nonspecialist". Crossroads ^-talk- 22:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Still, you are welcome to present the plenty of well-informed critical pieces on CRT sources you are apparently willing to accept. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I have already pointed out that the 2018 Cabrera source emphasizes other writers critical of CRT - including Kennedy (1989) and other, more recent sources - much more so than it does F & S, so that would be a place to start in looking for better-informed critical pieces. My other point is that when people working in unrelated domains of law ride in to write in opposition to CRT, they may be writing outside of their specialty - it isn't as though there aren't multiple voices to choose from, here.

And my point about the Kathleen Stock article is about policy, and is quite relevant. On WP, editors are expected to interpret policy based on their best, good faith understanding of what that policy means, and not based on what reading of policy would allow them to "win" a certain argument. Taking your argument at the Stock Talk page at face value, I don't see how your essential interpretive move - that critical scholarship is essentially PRIMARY in developing a position in a debate - would not apply much more strongly here, to an essentially polemical book, than it would to the article you were trying to dismiss at Kathleen Stock, which goes out of its way to observe philosophical norms by presenting the least biased and most sympathetic version of the arguments it opposes. That you do not even recognize the parallels between the two instances can only be explained, in my view, by a reading of policy that would allow you to "win" each argument, presented separately, rather than basing yourself on your most plausible understanding of what WP policy actually means on these matters. Newimpartial (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the personalizing. As for Kennedy, anyone is welcome to add him, but I'm surprised to see you say that he is so much more DUE than F&S, since Cabrera only gives him slighty more in length (a paragraph), while saying that there was a "controversy surrounding" his article, and that CRT was "in its infancy" at the time. I see no basis for elevating Kennedy way above F&S. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

One paragraph plus a tangential reference - which I quoted in full above - is quite a bit more than a tangential reference alone. Cabrera refers to F & S exactly zero times outside of inline citarions, and never sites them except alongside other sources, so your argument that the Kennedy discussion is only ... slightly more in length than nothing at all is, well, ingenious at least. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

As the policy says, "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one." All sources are primary for something elaborates: "More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material....A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." Or you can follow due and undue weight, which says, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." If a published opinion has not attracted attention in other sources then it lacks weight for inclusion.

Bear in mind that there are lots of opinions out there and since most published works are at least rs for the opinions of their authors, a wide range of reliably sourced opinions. Even flat earth theories are reliably sourced. But since this isn't a conspiracy theorist website, we need to reflect the weight in expert literature.

TFD (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of the essay and the rest of this, generally, the conclusions of a secondary source are treated as part of that source in terms of WEIGHT etc. In medical articles, for example, MEDRS literature reviews are not cited just to repeat what they relate about individual studies, but rather we report their conclusions. This is the practice in topic after topic. Can we agree on this? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Geez

This needs a full copyedit. There is so much writing that is at the upper undergrad/lower grad level. We should be writing for upper secondary/lower undergrad level. GMG^talk 13:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is a topic that is usually only covered in upper-level graduate seminars. It's like complaining that the article on the JAK-STAT pathway is too technical and needs to overhauled for 7th grade reading level. I mean, c'mon. This whole article is a farce. Critical race theory is a theory developed by people of color and other minorities and here it is being edited, repackaged, retold, and maligned by predominately white people. This is quite literally how Atwood's Handmaid's Tale is written. 141.126.131.191 (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What IP said. ––Formal ^talk 06:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree that articles should be written in plain English, free of WP:JARGON. What are some specific examples of wording in this article that needs improvement? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Summary

Wikipedia guidelines on introductions indicate they should avoid difficult to understand terminology. The introduction to this article is difficult to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Provide_an_accessible_overview --EdHayes3 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any particular terminology you found difficult? That would help with improving the lead. Suriname0 (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Explain it like you would to someone in middle school. Bold items are parts that someone could either find confusing or something they may have to research before continuing with the summary. Someone should really not have to go look up other terms or subjects in order to understand the summary. Also, this is bit of a run-on sentence. "Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of US civil-rights scholars and activists who seek to examine the intersection of race and US law and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice." --EdHayes3 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the summary is much too hard to understand, and unnecessarily so. DenverCoder9 (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2021

"...Academic critics of CRT argue that CRT is based on on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism..."

To be clear, one "on" needs to be removed.

Drives me crazy to think that hundreds of experts pretended that they went through this complex issue, and missed it. 2603:800C:2801:8A00:7805:F696:4A94:3D57 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done And even the busiest Wikipedia articles have far fewer than hundreds of editors, let alone "experts". Crossroads ^-talk- 17:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Criticism and Political Controversies

The "criticism" and "political controversies" sections should be separate. The political controversies about CRT sometimes do not even address the academic concept of CRT. See similar edit in Creationism: "Criticism" and "Education controversies" are separate sections. Many other contested educational concepts follow this pattern.

The sections were previously separate: the onus is to show that they should be merged. In addition, a single section, they were already too long. DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

the basics ?

Academic critics of CRT argue that CRT is based on on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, and opposes liberalism.

Details ...matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:2801:8A00:7805:F696:4A94:3D57 (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

editing

"... In 1964, Bell and the NAACP believed that resources for desegregated schools would be increased since white parents would insist on better quality schools..."

Repeated sentence from only 2 lines earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:2801:8A00:7805:F696:4A94:3D57 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pre-RM proposal: Critical race theory (academic theory)

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in 2021 isn't a theory described by Derrick Bell, Alan Freeman, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Cheryl Harris, Charles R. Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams. It is whatever Chris Rufo et al. have been talking about. This article should be moved, and the material about the past year of "CRT controversies" should be split back to this title. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Query isn't WP:NOTNEWS still a thing? Surely decades of academic publication is more encyclopaedic than the most recent 30-second clip of the Culture Wars (US edition)? Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. We should be deferring to what has long-term significance, not whatever the right's culture war of the month is. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather propose that an article Critical race theory (moral panic) be created for the Chris Rufo nonsense. The moral panic de jour should not take primacy over the long-established topic itself. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can come up with a better disambiguation I will propose that instead. Critical Race Theory (Rufo) obviously isn't acceptable either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would go with Critical Race Theory (trope), but that might seem niche. Perhaps Critical Race Theory (culture war shibboleth)? :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is also the option of having Rufoism at Critical Race Theory and Bell/Freeman at Critical race theory; that breaks multiple titling guidelines but if nothing else presents itself may be an option here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Critical race theory (dogwhistle), Critical race theory (propaganda), Critical race theory (US politics), Critical race theory (fearmongering), Critical race theory (fake news)... compare to red scare, fearmongering, moral panic. I might even just suggest Critical race theory backlash but I don't think that's quite right.

I personally lean toward moral panic as some RS have described it that way. US politics would be a decent catchall disambig though. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Surely the academic theory/framework/movement is primary with respect to long-term significance, i.e. has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. At least compared to a thing that even its proponents can't agree on a definition of (the contemporary political bogeyman called "critical race theory"). Given that academic sources are preferred, I'm sure it's primary with respect to usage as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you're all under-estimating the advantage of moving this article: that we don't have to agree on a new title for the other one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

These proposed titles can't be serious. Most of them are grossly non-neutral and unsupported by sources (unless one counts partisan pundits as sources). Whether or not, and to what degree, various school initiatives ideologically descend from CRT is disputed in the higher quality sources and by commentators. (e.g. [3]) While it is true that the Republicans have propagandized this to their own ends, many Democrats have taken an odd opposite tack that these things are not at all a change from the status quo and have nothing at all to do with this academic theory, despite the state's own documents showing this to be false. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal

Clearly, an RM will not support moving this article. My new proposal is to split a lot of the Chris Rufo et al. issues to Critical race theory backlash as a pure content-split. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the backlash is not to critical race theory per se, but to a variety of real and imagined things (diversity training, anti-racist education, etc.) lumped under that name, the proposal seems too imprecise. I stand by what I said in June: After 6 months to a year we should have a pretty good idea of what has gotten sustained RS coverage and what's recentist fluff. It's still too soon IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I've sliced and diced what we have here and at Christopher Rufo and spit out Draft:Critical race theory backlash. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to split this yet, but at least this title is much better than the others that were proposed. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

If the "controversy" is moved, it belongs in an article about the dispute about teaching racial diversity in schools. We could point out there that misinformed people sometimes confuse the two terms. TFD (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I note that Britannica's entry on critical race theory describes academic critiques of CRT and the current political backlash in the same section. Not sure what the consensus is on EB's reliability, but it confirms my feeling that both topics might be better covered in one article. I think a split may end up encouraging POV forking. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

There's very little about the Republican backlash and note it says CRT is only taught in law schools. Earlier it says, "critical race theorists believed that political liberalism was incapable of adequately addressing fundamental problems of injustice in American society." Diversity training OTH says that it is. Anyone who cannot tell the difference is either ignorant or disingenuous. TFD (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Diversity training" is a very wide net, and trainings differ in what they say. Some are very much CRT-inspired. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that CRT or CRT-inspired diversity training is being taught in schools? Anyway, wouldn't diversity training seem pointless from a CRT viewpoint? TFD (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, you first claimed that diversity training is somehow incompatible with CRT tenets. Anyway, Encyclopedia Britannica covers this: CRT in its fully developed form was being taught only in law schools, colleges, and universities—though generalized versions of some of its claims did appear in the curricula of some public schools. I'd also consider this pretty damning against the pundits who claimed again and again and again that CRT is not in public schools. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

What are these "generalized versions of some of its claims?" Exceptional claims require exceptional sources applies here. Do you have any expert sources? My understanding is that schools are teaching the "1619 Project," which definitely is not CRT. The only point of agreement is that both accept that racism continues to exist in the U.S.

The 1619 project says, "This is a capitalist society. It’s a fatalistic mantra that seems to get repeated to anyone who questions why America can’t be more fair or equal. But around the world, there are many types of capitalist societies, ranging from liberating to exploitative, protective to abusive, democratic to unregulated." Do you think that saying racism can exist under capitalism and that racism was an inevitable result of capitalism mean the same thingTFD (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The other option, if we can find good enough sourcing that what Chris Rufo et al. are talking about isn't *really* Critical race theory (academic theory), is to split to a title like Criticisms of DEI programs. Right now, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion redirects to Diversity (business) which contains none of that information. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

There's also diversity training. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I see there are a number of articles with the title format "Criticism of X". Still, I can't help thinking such an article would be an inevitable POV fork and a magnet for all sorts of unbalanced (in many ways) commentary. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Meh. The article isn't so long that it requires a split. If anything in particular needs trimmed it's the further reading section. Like gee fizz. If you've got some good books then yeah. But we could take any topic and dump like a zillion academic papers there. GMG^talk 13:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

I've started a (sub-stub) at Diversity, equity, and inclusion. Perhaps it could be part of Diversity training, but that article is mostly about pre-2000s programs, and DEI has been predominantly used as a term in the past decade. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Lacks supporting evidence"

The lede should read: "CRT lacks supporting evidence, is based on storytelling..."

The core criticism of CRT it is not true. The sentence should start with the core disagreement, and move on to other criticisms. You must establish consensus here before removing. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Who says CRT lacks supporting evidence, and where is this stated to be the core criticism of CRT? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe you've read WP:BRD incorrectly. You've BOLDly made an edit, that edit was disupted and REVERTED. Now it's time to DISCUSS why it should/should not be added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Sangbodeuf and Sideswipe9th. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand the original revert. The lede originally stated this and it was removed by another user. This should not happen: there should first be established consensus. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I can only find your addition of it from earlier today. I can't, and Wikiblame can't find any evidence of it in at least the last 500 versions. Perhaps you could assist? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ran the search again with 2500 version limit, and still the only time that particular phrasing has appeared is earlier today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Previous version: "Criticism of CRT includes claims that the theory cannot be tested,[8] that is it unsupported by evidence,[9]..." DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The current version says that, albeit in a different form in the last paragraph of the lead: Academic critics of CRT argue that CRT is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects the concepts of truth and merit, I'd also point out that the addition you proposed earlier does not say what you've just quoted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is different to say that there are problems with a theories methodology and that the theory is false. We can use the original exact wording if you exist and debate changes from there. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, I still can't find the old version of the lead you're referring to. Taking this second quotation and running it through Wikiblame brings up no revisions containing that phrasing between now and January of this year. Could you link a diff/revision where that was the case so we can at least figure out what happened subsequent to that to change the text? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I see it in wikiblame in January of this year. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources cited there were primary sources for said "criticism". The lead section especially should respect due weight and reflect quality tertiary sources instead of cherry-picking isolated criticisms. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on that idea, Crenshaw et al. would be a primary source because it states Crenshaw's opinion. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If we were citing Crenshaw for a statement like, "Proponents of CRT say X", then yes. But that's not how that source is being used. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting PSTS. WP:SECONDARY states, A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources....They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Your contention that exactly that sort of analytic claims are actually primary, and that we need another layer of sourcing before stating them, is contrary to what the policy plainly says, which specifically says that those are part of the secondary source. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The relevant claim is what "criticism" of CRT entails. A source criticizing CRT is not secondary for its own criticism. See WP:ALLPRIMARY. As I said earlier: Feel free to cite the author's own thinking (whether such thinking is duly weighted is a separate issue). But to label it "criticism" requires an additional source calling it criticism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an additional source 'secondary to' the critical analysis; this is a made up rule contradicting SECONDARY and creating an extraordinarily high bar to inclusion of criticism. Criticism is a type of analysis, which is the activity that secondary sources engage in. ALLPRIMARY is merely an essay/supplement page, but even so notes that A textbook might include commentary on the proclamation (which is secondary material) and The book about love letters might analyze the letters (which is secondary material). Analysis is secondary. Secondary sources inherently carry WEIGHT, and we report the sort of analysis they engage in as stated by them themselves. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The analysis in question was specifically labeled "criticism", which is not in any source, let alone stated by [the sources] themselves. Hence WP:OR. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are seriously denying that this book says that it is "criticizing" critical race theory? So you are admitting it is a secondary source, we just can't refer to its analysis as "criticism"? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. And even if it did, the book would still be a primary source for that statement. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a surreal argument. If this is the only 'objection', I think we have achieved consensus. I encourage editors with real objections to chime in. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You can handwave and scarequote all you like, but WP:NOR happens to be a core policy of Wikipedia. Why the push to include 20-year-old "criticism" that hasn't been backed up by any more recent scholarship? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are saying that this book does not say that it is "criticizing" critical race theory. That is patently false. There's really no more to say here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: that book was published in 1997, twenty four years ago. I have to agree with Sangdeboeuf, in just under a quarter of a century there must be more recent sources to cite. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The argument keeps changing. First it's primary, then when that is debunked it's claimed that calling it criticism is OR (lol), now it's the age that's the problem (despite the fact that more recent sources treat it as significant, whether agreeing with or arguing against them; WP:UBO). It's clear that the conclusion that they should not be cited is predetermined and the argument against it is interchangeable. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UBO, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability ... whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. The latter is clearly the case here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Doubts about reliability for fact is not the same thing as academic disagreement about what certain ideas imply. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Debatable. It would be helpful if you could show some positive examples of WP:UBO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

"Critique" is not the same as "criticism". The book is a primary source for its own statements, including any "criticism" it may engage in. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I will wait for another user to back Sangdeboeuf's assertion that this book is not "criticizing" CRT. There is no point in going in circles about basic logic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That book was a 20th-century publication by two constitutional law scholars. It does not represent recent, reliable scholarship. For it to be WP:DUE for inclusion in this article, really, there would have to be evidence that recent, reliable sources on the topic of this article recognize it as significant. To my knowledge, sadly, no such evidence has been provided to date. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not addressing the sole contention of my previous comment. Sangdeboeuf's assertion defies basic logic. Are you asserting that it is true? DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Back to this again? The critique (or whatever you want to call it) is the analysis that WP:SECONDARY sources engage in. By this logic, any conclusion of any academic review article or book or even encyclopedia is actually a primary source, and we need another source to repeat that to use it. Of course, this logic is only applied to criticism of CRT, nothing else about the topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

It is the same point I made before. I've explained it several times already, your apparent inability to grasp it notwithstanding. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads. There is no point in going in circles about basic logic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Then circle back to my replies, round and round we go. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether Farber & Sherry's book is "criticism" or "critique" of CRT is moot, since we have an independent source (Cabrera, 2018) directly addressing their critique. I was more concerned with the earlier citations to Kozinski and Posner, two judges who happened to write opinion essays critical of CRT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Political controversies

With this edit, the text:

Critical race theory stirred controversy in the United States beginning in the 1980s, for critiquing color blindness ...

was changed to:

Critical race theory stirred controversy in the United States beginning in the 1980s, for critiquing the liberal principle of equality ...

The source cited (Ansell, 2008) does not say this. Ansell says that "the critique of liberal, color-blind ideology" and its "formalistic conception of equality" is one of CRT's overarching themes, but not that this critique in particular attracted controversy. Instead Ansell says controversy came from CRT's use of "standpoint epistemology" and "legal instrumentalism". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

In fact, he says it in your very quote: the liberal conception of equality. If you prefer, we can change it to the "liberal, color-blind ideology and formalistic conception of equality". Like most CRT primary sources, that seems rather wordy. DenverCoder9 (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ansell is not a primary source. Where does she say that this critique stirred controversy? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that Ansell is not a primary source, but Sangdeboeuf told us above that a "book is a primary source for its own statements". Should I listen to Sangdeboeuf or Sangdeboeuf? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice try, but Ansell's statements are not the material in question here. If the content in question were "Amy Ansell believes X", then a separate source saying so would be needed. If it's clearer, replace statements with arguments. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If an Author A states B, that is sufficient evidence for "Author A states B". You do not need a separate Author C saying "Author A states B". Your argument could seem to apply to every instance where a CRT scholar makes a statement about CRT. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say a separate citation is necessary for "Author A states B". Stating something is not the same as believing something or criticizing someone. And this has nothing to do with whether the source by Ansell supports the material in question. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this discussion is not that there seems to be a willful misunderstanding of editing principles. The problem is that this willful misinterpretation is repeated, pushes a point of view, derails discussions, gives false impressions of consensus, and can only be described as disruptive. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Those are some very strong WP:ASPERSIONS to be casting about one or more other editors. If you have proof of this, I'd recommend raising it to the relevant noticeboard. Otherwise, I would remind you of assume good faith. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@DenverCoder19: Please follow Sideswipe9th's wise advice. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an issue of WP:ASPERSIONS, it is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE as discussed above. How can we call it criticism for a theory that attributes racism to liberal ideology to reject liberal ideology? it seems that owing to being misinformed, some readers assume that CRT is a form of liberal analysis of racism, which it isn't. We don't for example include as criticism of the U.S. constitution that it rejects monarchy, as if that was some deep secret they were trying to hide. These discussions would be more productive if some editors read something about CRT before editing the article. TFD (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It also may be that the point being made in those sources is just not presented that well, and that the source says more than 'liberalism good, therefore CRT bad'. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The above statement about color blindness seems to have been boldly added in March 2012, but Ansell (2008) does not support several of the "controversies" mentioned, including the critique of and/or deviation from color blindness. If no other reliable, secondary or tertiary sources support this text, it should be removed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)