Talk:Critical race theory/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Fundamental, Critical, Genetic Differences in Races

Does "Critical Race Theory" take into account that one component of racial divisions may be that there are scientifically provable differences between races, and that at least some of what passes for "racism" is really the natural reaction to the suppression of that possible truth, to the extent that it is considered racist to even ask the question(s), such as if there are scientifically demonstrable differences in intelligence between races, that some races are more or less likely to commit crime and violence, that some races have demonstrated a superior ability to adapt to a changing environment and survive while others do not, etc... In short, does CRT allow for the question that one race may be better or worse than another in some respect?Jonny Quick (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Critical Race Theory directly rejects that. Moreover, Critical Race Theory would reject that there is a stable definition of a race over time, that race is a social construction that adapts to changing economic and historical contexts. Hope that helps. --67.170.89.24 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not really sure, but Nazism does. Perhaps you might feel more comfortable editing that article? Hammersbach (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Does it matter what anyone thinks other than the solons at Wikipedia, the fake "people's press?" I think it does not. You guys have grown to power and power corrupts. Wiki is corrupt and no longer deserves a place on the stage of public opinion, and that is exactly what you have become: opinion. There are other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.119.21 (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


Excellent question, Jonny Quick. If critical race theory was a "real thing", to use a colloquial expression, then you wouldn't have visceral, appeal to emotion responses to the inquiry (deflections to "Nazism", etc.).giggle (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll assume good-faith and give an honest response: No, it doesn't. Why? Probably because there is no scientific consensus on whether race is causally related to intelligence. Charles Murray doesn't even claim to know that race is a cause. The other traits to which you refer seem to fall under Darwinism, but also proceed from the unproven (and generally rejected) assumption that these characteristics are part-and-parcel with race.
If you think CPT is enormously flawed, then you agree with most of academia. But no, your particular concern is not shared by anyone of import. Lukacris (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1964 Coleman Report might be of historic importance in this article: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf Charles Juvon (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor gammar query

Opening section, second para, final sentence: "Important scholars to the theory include Derrick Bell, ..."

I may be wrong but that does not look grammatically correct to me. I would've expected

  • Important scholars of the theory include ...
  • Important contributions to the theory have been made by ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalanb (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Teaching CRT in the UK is against the law - Equalities Minister

The UK equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has said that teaching CRT, for instance treating white privilege as a fact, is against the law in the UK. See the following articles on this [1] [2] This should be included in the article I think. Awoma (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Applications section needs work

The second paragraph of the Applications section contains the following:

Advocates of Critical Race Theory, and those who believe that society's problems boil down to institutionalized racism, changed the dictionary definition of racism, banned the use of the word "illegal immigrant" by respectable journalists, would rather ignore the FBI statistics on interracial crime, marginalized and continue to marginalize Christians, weaponize grievance politics to crush the status of heterosexual white males in the hope that these heterosexual white males would feel perpetually ashamed of being born that way, and advocate well-meaning but counterproductive reforms to "reimagine" our most sacred institutions using inflated, visceral, and emotional rhetoric.

This appears to be a critique of CRT, but the content of its citations do not explicitly refer to CRT. For example, these critiques reflect general complaints against “liberal” or “secular” or “anti-Christian” sentiments, but they do not really offer any concrete evidence for how CRT represents these sentiments. I would recommend removing this verbiage, unless its author can can better substantiate these claims by directly citing materials authored by CRT scholars. Otherwise, these criticisms will only reflect a biased and unmerited commentary against CRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdpeffley (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The paragraph is very charged and uncited. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Verbosity

This article uses many more words than are necessary. It might be a good idea to add a verbosity tag for some cleanup.

Example: "a particular mode of thought or widely shared practice determines significant social outcomes, usually occurring without conscious knowledge"

This means no more than "Unconscious practices and beliefs affect social outcomes." DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Example: "which itself was introducing new frameworks to the legal field"

With fewer words: "which introduced new legal frameworks" DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

  • Unfortunately, the criticism section isn't critical. In the list of criticisms by year, each paragraph ends praising CRT. The criticism section is for criticism.
  • The article uses a lot of political/activist language. Although I agree with the article's theory, this has no place on an encyclopedic entry about a philosophy.

Examples:

"the university, ignoring student requests created a significant conflict with the administration"

"some students felt affronted by using an 'archetypal white liberal'" DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor issue: citation

Regarding this back-and-forth with DenverCoder19.

Citation #1: Crenshaw et al. 1995, p. 19 in "Introduction": "Critical Race Theory thus represents an attempt to inhabit and expand the space between two very different intellectual and ideological formations…[i.e. Civil Rights reform and Critical Legal Studies]"

Citation #2: Crenshaw et al. 1995, pp. xix–xxvii.

Please note that xix == 19. Jlevi (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! My mistake. I think we should include the wider citation because it includes a discussion of critical theory. Done. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

General Academic Consensus

We should do more to note the general academic consensus about CRT. Reading the article, one might be lead to believe that CRT is a debated topic like dark matter.

In fact, many law professors do not take CRT seriously. Some will bristle at the mention of it, as if one mentioned intelligent design to a biologist, but most will treat it as if one mentioned acupuncture to a doctor. Some doctors do recommend acupuncture. There isn't consensus in the literature to prove that it doesn't work. But it's not taken seriously by most. A better comparison might be the idea that climate change is caused by other factors than human involvement. While the point debated by some serious scientists, most don't engage with it, many strongly oppose it, and Wikipedia should be careful to let readers understand this.

I'm working on this and all help is appreciated. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have some citations regarding this? It should certainly be included with appropriate weight if citations from reliable sources are available. Jlevi (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's already in most of the citations if read carefully. A naive synthesis will note that some scholars promote CRT and others oppose it. But what's missing from the article is that it's absent from most scholars consideration; it's not taken seriously. To call it part of legal theory is a misleading.
As an example, compare Mayo Clinic: Acupuncture and Acupuncture. Naively reading the Mayo Clinic, one might assume that Acupuncture is part of scientific medicine. An authoritative source won't go out of its way to point out that few scholars accept a theory; an encyclopedia needs to. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Similarly, the consensus is that critical race theory (a) makes few concrete, testable claims (b) rejects legal principles like truth and fairness. For most scholars, that's enough. It's like demonstrating that a theory violates the second law of thermodynamics—or can't be tested.
To show that an idea isn't accepted by most of academia, you don't need quotes from all academics. We need only note that most scholars do not engage with the theory; but we need to do this, or we risk confusing readers who come here looking to learn academic disciplines. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have sources saying that CRT isn't supported by most academics? There are many that say this about climate change and about acupuncture, to branch off of your analogy. Jlevi (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but would appreciate help puting them all in the article. See new talk issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important to include the connection to critical legal studies and Frankfurt School Critical Theory in the lede. For people looking to know what critical race theory is, this is like linking physics in a description of quantum mechanics. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You need citations to support your claims, unfortunately. I appreciate your analogies, but we need things stated explicitly in our sources to say them in our articles. See wp:OR. Jlevi (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
There is. See Crenshaw et. al. DenverCoder9 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Does that source mention the Frankfurt school or Marxism? The issue I'm highlighting here is that wp:synthesis of disparate sources is a recipe for a mess. Also, why should that be in the lead, rather than in the "history" section? (wp:Lead follows body.) Jlevi (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
They do. Current citations don't just state that CRT is an offshoot of CLS and CLS is an offshoot of Critical Theory, but draw the explicit link to Critical Theory. Adding another citation just in case. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism is rather sparse on citations and unquoted material. To help us, I've put some good sources below. Would appreciate help adding these to the article!

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To add

A fairly minor news Breitbart story occurred a couple years back based on an Obama-Bell connection (a hug!). Definitely not worth a big splash here, but a sentence or two sounds fair. It came up again in the the Trump-era opposition to CRT.

Sources:

Jlevi (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! Kudos DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CRT examines...

We need to be careful with the phrasing "CRT examines the relationship between....". CRT starts with the assumption that law is inherently racist. By the definition of most CRT practitioners, any work that doesn't assume law is racist isn't part of CRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Expand section on 'Intersectional Theory' under 'Major Themes:'

"Intersectional theory: The examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination (i.e., their intersections) plays out in various settings, e.g., how the needs of a Latina female are different from those of a black male and whose needs are the ones promoted." Critical race theory and intersectionality theory overlap significantly, in that "intersectionality as both a product and an articulation of critical race theory."[1] Colorblind intersectionality specifically refers to instances in which race "is a part of a cognizable social category but is unrecognized or unarticulated as an intersectional subject position," thereby resulting in class-not-race reforms.[2]

Cf2022 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

References

  1. ^ Carbado, Devon (2013). "Colorblind Intersectionality". Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 38 (3).
  2. ^ Feingold, Jonathan (2020-10-30). ""All (Poor) Lives Matter": How Class-Not-Race Logic Reinscribes Race and Class Privilege". University of Chicago Law Review Online: 47.
Hi Cf2022! Thank you very much for your suggestion--I've been hoping to better explain how CRT and intersectionality overlap. These appear to be high-quality sources, so some of their contents is likely to be very useful for this page.
I think I'll need to look closely at this source. I think your suggested statement may be too broad a reading from too specific a source. A fuller quote from the first source is: "By linking intersectionality to a critique of formal equality, colorblindness, and gender normativity, this essay relocates intersectionality as both a product and an articulation of critical race theory" (emphasis added). My concern is that (if I'm reading this properly) the main point of the paper is to provide a new exploration to find an overlap between intersectionanlity and CRT. This may be good scholarship, but it also constitutes wp:primary work in the context of wikipedia. To make a general statement about the CRT-intersectionality overlap, it is desirable to find a secondary source on this matter. This could appear in the background section of a relevant paper, for instance. Looking at WP:PRIMARY and the surrounding section may be helpful here.
Nonetheless, I think these materials may be very useful. As a layman, I may be misinterpreting, so please do correct me if I'm misreading. Jlevi (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is correct and should just be done, but only mentioned very lightly. There's already an Intersectionality article, so we shouldn't include much content here. However, we should draw the link.

The link isn't hard to make: Crenshaw, who coined the term CRT, also came up with intersectionality. Most writing about CRT uses the term. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE

Most legal scholars do not teach or use CRT. (See list of law schools that do.) CRT specifically rejects concepts of mainstream legal theory like objectivity, neutrality, truth, and reason. CRT makes specific claims, like the fact that law is inherently racist, that are unsupported by objective evidence (in fact, CRT rejects the pursuit of objective evidence).

Given this, CRT is a "minority viewpoint". Per WP:DUE, this article needs to do more to highlight the difference between what CRT scholars believe and the majority viewpoint.

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.

Specifically, we use phrases like "[Author] documents the theoretical element..." implying that what comes after is true. We should try to reformulate this to highlight that this is a belief of the author without endorsing that view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Essentialism vs Anti-essentialism

Essentialism is listed as a theme of critical race theory. The way it is included makes it sound as if critical race theory supports essentializing race. The citation given, Stefancic and Delgado's Critical Race Theory, an Introduction, does not support essentializing. I tried to edit this to anti-essentialism, but it got edited back to essentialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.89.24 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is a really interesting thing I've noticed. The sources cited in the citation seem to contradict what is written in this article. This section of the article is framed around two sources by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic and article from 1993 and a the book Critical Race Theory: and Introduction. Our Wikipedia article follows the template of Delgado and Stefancic in many ways. If their work is significant, it almost seems like we should just include that part of their article in here verbatim without paraphrasing it. Although I'm pretty sure it is not allowed. In Delgado and Stefancic's 1993 article that is cited in our Wikipedia article it says "Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do All oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7)."

However this Wikipedia article it says, " Essentialism: Reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans). In essence, all oppressed people share the commonality of oppression. However, such oppression varies by gender, class, race, etc., and therefore, the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups."

In the book Critical Race Theory an Introduction it answers the questions Do all oppressed peoples have something in common, " This question lies at the heart of the essentialism/antiessentialism debate. On one level, the answer is obvious: of course all oppressed people have something in common—their oppression. But the forms of that oppression may vary from group to group. And if they do, the needs and political strategies of groups fighting for social change will vary as well. Therefore I am going to edit this wikipedia to more accurately reflect what Stefancic and Delgado are saying Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that Critical Race Theory according to Stefancic and Delgado seems to have conversations about essentialism and anti essentialism. To say essentialism alone does not capture what the sentiment appears to be. And I don't know. I mean no disrespect to the work done before. I'm going to edit it and let me know what you think Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that it has been very hard to pin down exact statements about what critical race theory is and is not. Notice the substantial difference in the two different definitions giving under "Definitions" as of 2021-01-07. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
There are two things I will respond to. First, treatment of essentialism. Second, usage of the annotated bibliography (CRT-AB).
To point one, I agree with the rephrasing Hockeydogpizzapup's. It seems like the CRT-AB theme means discussion of essentialism and categorization, and not saying that one or the other is the right side in all cases.
To point two, I think we need to be a little more careful in using the CRT-AB. Unlike some of the other collections of themes or tenets which try to boil down the central themes, CRT-AB tries to be as broad as possible, I think. This is because, as a bibliography, it's trying to take in the entire corpus of CRT publications. In contrast, most of the other sources we're using are from introductory texts or background sections from papers+books. This means that relying on CRT-AB may introduce themes that are not quite as central. Jlevi (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Applying insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems.[1]
  • Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (incl. black nationalism).[1]
  • Legal institutions, critical pedagogy, and minority lawyers in the bar: Concerns of representation among women and scholars of color in law school and the bar have brought on the development of an alternative, Critical pedagogy as a new approach to such issue.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c Delgado & Stefancic 1993.
In light of this issue, I think I removed the couple of more general, non-central themes that are listed only in the CRT-AB and not in any of the other (much more consistent) theme summary lists. Keeping here for reference, and it's possible that they should be added back.
The empathetic fallacy is a subset of structural determinism, so that'll get folded in. Need to check the location of essentialism vs. anti-essentialism. Also need to check itnersectionality. Jlevi (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede with ": First"

Jlevi - I believe you switched the lede to a longer version that contained some grammatical errors. Per readability, we're trying to condense it. The version also paraphrased at length from primary sources. We're trying to make the language more Wikipedia-esque. What did you like in that version that you want to add to this? DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me be clearer about this revert, which I did with edit summary "Seems like you accidentally reverted lots of other things. Please be more more precise in your reverts". By this, I suggest you open that diff and look not at the specific long-standing section you removed, but rather all the other small improvements to the page that were reverted. These include citation fixes, template fixes, and improved use of quotes and dates. Jlevi (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
That's my mistake! Thank you! DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Is this what you meant? DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep! Thank you. Jlevi (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IP unsourced additions

I removed some unsourced and partially incorrect material added and fought over by some IP editors (218.215.224.177 and 2600:6c5c:6800:74f1:3e2e:7b6e:8cba:380d.

Here's the text:

Extended content

A Critical Race theorist may look to address such criticisms by referring to the many thousands of studies that demonstrate racism exists in society, especially for people of color, and that this racism is ultimately tied to white systems of power, including an overrepresentation of whites in high levels of the Western political systems. Seminal texts, such as Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (Delgado and Stefancic) make no reference to anti-Semitism,[failed verification] and CRT scholars would argue this is a false argument. CRT can be used to explain racism towards all groups, and Jewish people form part of a much bigger collective of Whites; CRT does not single out certain groups, such as Jews, but looks more towards bigger systems of white privilege. CRT investigates people's experiences within a certain context (country or society etc.), and thus, it could also potentially be used to study racism towards a variety of groups, not just people of color. Most often though, it is employed in studies of Blacks, Latinos, Asians and other groups of colour, because research indicates they experience far more racism within Western societies.[citation needed]

Reliable sources are necessary to add material, so I removed this. I think responses to this criticism do exist, and I'll see if I can find that.

Regarding antisemitism: the Delgado and Stefancic intro does in fact discuss the claims about antisemitism on pages 102-104 of the 3rd edition. I'll add that commentary in the appropriate location. Jlevi (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks re unsourced addition! DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Re Delgado response, I don't think that makes sense. It doesn't explain the central critique, which is that the logic of CRT implies that Jewish people "should" represent a much smaller fraction of the academy. In effect, Delgado admits that this is a 'problem' with the 'theory'. I'm not sure if he would see it as a problem, but he makes no effort to break the chain of logic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

80s vs 1987

I noticed a change from "1987" to "80s". Since we can put an exact date on the origin of the phrase, and the precipitating event--Derek Bell--why not say the exact date? DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not seen a source that explicitly says that 1987 is the start of CRT. If you have, could you provide a page and a quote?
Instead, most sources describe the development of CLS into CRT as a more gradual process. For example: "The 1986 and 1987 CLS conferences thus marked significant points of alignment and departure, and should be considered the final step in the preliminary development of CRT as a distinctively progressive critique of legal discourse on race" (Crenshaw 1995, "the key writings").
This source describes those two conferences as the final step in CRT's development. To say everything happened in 1987 is a bit reductive, given this. Jlevi (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Crenshaw herself states that "there were no developments" in CRT in 1987. It can't have existed before 1987, and it did exist after, so 1987 is the date. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenets in intro

Quotes from "Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement" are in the first page of the introduction. The page numbering starts after the introduction. What page number should we use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the number is just cut off in the linked scan. The next page is xiv. Also, how did you pick those three statements? Jlevi (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Those were all statements that Crenshaw said CRT was "about". Since Crenshaw coined the term, it's acceptable to consider anything from her authoritative, in the absence of dissent. It might be possible to define CRT more precisely by adding more statements, but we definitely shouldn't get rid of these. In particular, the thorny part of the definition we should be focusing on is "elite interests". Most sources define it as "white interests", but operate under a narrower definition of "white" than white. DenverCoder9 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems like there are separate pieces here. There are the second two statements: 1) "to understand how a regime of white supremacy...[has] been created in America]" and 2) "the desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it". These are described as the two common tenets. But the first bullet is not framed in this way. Could you explain why you are placing it alongside the two common tenets? Jlevi (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It's stated as a tenet of CRT, even if in an odd format. The format of the introduction in particular and most CRT writings in general...do not adhere to Wikipedia's standard of writing. Compare Deconstruction and most sources about Deconstruction. We need to do a lot of work to collect the relevant ideas in a human-readable format.
Second, just because something isn't highlighted as a tenet of a theory doesn't mean it doesn't deserve weight on Wikipedia. An academic discipline specifically disavowing normal standards of academic discourse deserves weight on Wikipedia; it isn't highlighted in most CRT papers because it's assumed. But Wikipedia is not a CRT paper; we need to make this explicit. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm really not sure how to respond here. The text says "Although CRT scholarship differs in object, argument, accent, and emphasis, it is nevertheless unified by two common interests". So how do we learn what those two interests are? Luckily, we can finish the paragraph to find out. It says "the first..." and then "the second...". This seems a pretty straightforward reading of the material. The third bullet may be seen as important, but it's framed in an entirely different manner.
It's possible that reading the primary texts might be unproductive. There are many introductory texts and secondary sources on this matter. I might suggest looking at these first for more easily digested intros.
The big issue is that if you "do a lot of work to collect the relevant ideas in a human-readable format", that tends to lend itself to original interpretation of the material. For example, I have seen no discussion that highlights three main themes in CRT, but that wound up stated very concretely in the lead for the last couple days. Jlevi (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
​ I don't think it will be possible to achieve consensus for this addition between the two of us. Because the onus is on you to gain consensus before adding this new material to the lead, I propose seeking more voices in this discussion. There are some specific mechanisms to do this to bring uninvolved editors to the discussion, so let me know if you want to try that out (FYI, I've never done that before). Jlevi (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

The article notes "Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community, and has impeded dialogue." What's the actual quote for this and can it be added to the sourcing? 80.47.137.128 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Will add. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3480866?seq=1 and "Against All Reason" by Farber and Sherry DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, I see sections in "Subfields" for "HebCrit" and "AsianCrit". I found only one paper for "HebCrit" and three for "AsianCrit". Even though these may be good papers, there needs to be more academic activity that this for something to be declared a "field of study". Three papers don't make a field of study. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you share what you found? There are definitely a couple dozen papers that use the exact phrase "AsianCrit". I suggest looking at the citations inside the papers you found. Also please consider expanding the Asiancrit or HebCrit section with what comes up if possible. Jlevi (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I found more than two dozen papers that use the phrase "AsianCrit" on google scholar. But that's not the same thing as being about AsianCrit. Many are just citations.
I found as many papers that use the phrase "intelligent design", but we shouldn't call that a field of study DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, there is exactly one paper with a title containing "HebCrit". Since we're still discussing AsianCrit, I'll leave it, but there's no argument for HebCrit. DenverCoder9 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
See the last paragraph of this summary from UCLA that we are currently using for our definition section. Even better than throwing a lot of specific papers around, this seems like a solid summarizing statement. And I agree that HebCrit might not be sufficiently large--but also, if all you've done is look through GS, then some better due diligence might be in order. Jlevi (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that summary is just from one school. It's better to quote the founders of the movement. I've searched GS and jstor. I agree that that doesn't prove no such paper exists, but it makes it unlikely any paper as been cited. Let's find Russell's teapot if we believe it exists. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm identifying this as a secondary source summarizing a field. Individual papers constitute primary sources in the field of CRT. Wikipedia is built primary of Wikipedia:Secondary sources. For that reason, this is a more useful source for our purposes than individual papers, though they may prove useful in fleshing out some features. Jlevi (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that there has been disagreement in the field about what CRT is and is not, so a summarization like this needs to come with evidence that it has acceptance from everyone in the field. In a field that openly challenges the idea of reason and logic, far better to simply quote what the most prominent scholars have stated. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that claim? Or sources from inside CRT (or from RS describing it) regarding your claims about disagreement? If so, it would be very useful for building this article. If there is a conflict in the field, then that's okay! Documenting the facts about that conflict could be totally relevant for this article as long as that conflict is described in reliable sources. Trying to synthesize a view of the field by explicitly comparing sources is not okay, however (wp:synth). Jlevi (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
No synthesis in the article. As a human editor, who has read the different definitions, and studied CRT in school, I have the (arguable) opinion that the definitions aren't equivalent. That opinion isn't making it into the article. WP:SYNTH isn't against using your judgement; it's about putting those judgements in the article.
In order to stay on the safe side, it's best to quote most authoritative sources unless we have citations that all the scholars agree with the UCLA statement. This is a field that denies the existence of logic and argumentation, so we should tread carefully with logical reformulations of ideas and err on the side of direct quotation. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In particular, if you read the definitions, you'll see that material makes its way into the UCLA definition not present in the other definitions. It's fine for different sources to differ in the strength of the arguments they make, but a definition, definitionally, contains exactly the same information as another definition of the same thing. By making the definition narrower, UCLA is defining something different. No point in our searching for the one correct definition. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The statement "few concrete assertions" is from the citation. In particular, the author argues that because in CRT "there is no objective reality", then there are few concrete assertions (or are none) to engage with. Can add more citations, but believe this is clear from the source materials. Again, the field explicitly disavows concreteness and objectivity. It's helpful to alert the reader of this who is looking for a concrete definition. Since there's disagreement, I've removed the sentence. Feel free to add back if you agree. DenverCoder9 (talk)
Are you saying that the phrase "few concrete assertions" is literally in the article? I am not seeing it. This is a very different statement from "there is no objective reality". You can have concrete statements about a framework even if one of them is anti-objectivity. In short, I think the claims in NYT book review and the "few concrete assertions" claim are quite different. One is about what a theory implies about the world. The other is about the theory's internal logic. Jlevi (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Objectivity is unique as a form of logic because when a 'theory' abandons the notion of objective truth, it abandons the notion of concrete statements about the world--indeed, it abandons the notion of statements, true or false. The discussion may be a bit dizzying because we're discussing a theory that denies true and false statements, but there are no assertions in a theory that denies the notion of an objective assertion. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In a separate discussion, Sherry et al. note CRT's claims about "keeping their own deficiencies neatly hidden while assuring only people like them get in." I think that's much more than the summary you stated. Specifically, it plays into anti-semetic tropes from Foxman et al:

  • Powerful Jews control the world.
  • Jews cheat non-Jews.
  • Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind".

See Economic Antisemitism#Stereotypes_and_canards. For this reason, I'm maintaining the quote. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This will depend on strength of sourcing. On Wikipedia, it's important to rely on secondary sources to evaluate what details of an issue are important. Right now, I'm unsure where you are getting that quote. Could you add a short, separate sentence preceding the quote to make this clear? More generally, see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Jlevi (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Great! Added the page. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


References

Criticism Lede

Let's split up the discussion about the lede and the criticism section of the lede. I think it's very easy to see that the longer criticism section is more comprehensive and condensed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

White Privilege and Institutional Racism

The author(s) of this article talks as if Institutional racism and White Privilege is a theory. IT IS NOT. Why does he or she think that african-americans and POC are poorer than whites in general across the western world. Does he think it is a coincidence? The author should just admit that they are a MAGA Trump supporter or a british conservative like 99.9% of people who complain or excessively talk about CRT(LIKE THE AUTHORS WHO EDITED THE WHITE SUPREMACY AND INSTITUTIONAL RACISM ARTICLES). The author is Biased and should admit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksnowman456 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We should try to minimize vandalism by users like this. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Separatism

In this diff, which adds back this:

Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism: The exploration of more radical views that argue for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid (incl. black nationalism).

You​ include the edit summary "I think this is a theme in works, if not all. let's achieve consensus before removing." Could you reference some sources that justify this point? Jlevi (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Delgado. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Might be worth reviewing the discussion at Talk:Critical_race_theory#Essentialism_vs_Anti-essentialism. The Delgado source is an attempt to develop an annotated bibliography in the mid-90s. For this reason, it is trying to include every major theme discussed in CRT--not just the major themes. In other collections of themes (which are based on primary themes, rather than exhaustive collection), this idea is not included.
This is why I ask whether you have a reference supporting "I think this is a theme in works, if not all". I don't think the current reference supports this as a major theme, though it may support it as a minor theme (as of the mid-90s, at least). Jlevi (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead changes.

I reverted the lead back to its last stable version after seeing some of the disputes over it; the revised version was starkly worse in several respects, especially the first paragraph. Encyclopedia Britannica is a far weaker source than the multiple high-quality academic sources it used before, and the old lead (Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a theoretical framework in the social sciences that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power in the United States of America) more accurately summarizes both the topic and the body of the article. Similarly, the common themes in the old version are better-cited and give more relevant information. The sentence on how widely it is used is vital context (in terms of "why does this matter.") Finally, the last paragraph was rewritten to give excessive / undue focus to individual critiques. There is room to improve the lead, but this was a total rewrite that made it worse and far less reflective of the article as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, and I do not see that people were edit warring over it. It seems like people were working collaboratively until you showed up and declared that the work on the lead was invalid. The new version is at least as well sourced. I see no problem with the weight given to critiques. Despite the fact that CRT is very fashionable amongst certain political sectors (and a boogeyman amongst others), this is a contentious perspective. Crossroads -talk- 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
It is plainly WP:BOLD to rewrite the entire lead of an article over a matter of days; and the previous lead was (clearly) better sourced, since many sources were removed. Nor do I see any broad consensus for the rewritten lead above. Please follow WP:BRD - if you recognize that the topic is contentious, then you must also recognize that boldly rewriting the entire lead of a contentious topic over a matter of days is controversial and worth getting more discussion on, and that revert-warring back to it (as you did) when it's reverted to the last stable version is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that Newimpartial has followed me here to revert me. [12] I don't see how you can complain about sourcing when the old lead had 8 sources and the new had 14.
Jlevi and Denvercoder, can you two weigh in on this? I see no reason to WP:STONEWALL the old lead or not accurately describe criticisms. Crossroads -talk- 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Please don't make false accusations of HOUNDing. All I want here is consensus on a BALANCEd version of the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure what it looked like to me. Do you think the tags are actually needed or was that just caught up in the "stable version" thing? Crossroads -talk- 17:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the tags were part of the stable version - it would have been unseemly for me to revert the text but leave out the tags.
I would also point out that the BOLD version cited a large number of low-quality sources, which isn't what the lede should be doing (especially from a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY perspective). Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Which sources are that? Crossroads -talk- 17:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of the sources in the paragraph beginning "Criticism of Critical Race Theory..." were UNDUE for the lead, but the worst is Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law which is out of date, outside the relevant field, and is mostly an extended opinion piece AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the old lead is better than the recent version. In this edit I reverted to the old lead after thinking about this matter for a couple days and going back-and-forth on details (cordially, but with definite disagreements) with DenverCoder19--I initially thought that some changes could be salvaged, but in the end I think working off of the old lead will be more productive. Jlevi (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Weighing in here. The longer lede suffered from a number of issues, including:
1. verbose/technical language (as noted in the template)
2. It reads like the introduction to a book about critical race theory, rather than an encylopedia entry.
3. It didn't sufficiently flag to the reader that critical race theory isn't an accepted legal theory. There's a small group of people strong opposed and supporting, but the important part is that most legal scholars don't use it or take it seriously.
4. The fact that critical race theory explicitly disavows notions of truth, reason, and fairness makes it almost unique in the legal theory--and so should be noted in the introduction.
Taking it paragraph by paragraph:
1. The shorter intro included the same good information as the longer one and none of the unnecessary information like "which itself was introducing new frameworks to the legal field, such as postmodernism, queer theory, and post-colonialism"
2. The definitions section:
a. "that white supremacy exists" - "white supremacy" means something very specific in CRT, so it should go back to "a specific notion of white supremacy"
b. "that transforming the relationship...." - this is a very wordy paraphrasing/reinterpretation. Crenshaw states it much better: "a desire to change the law"
c. in the above, "racial power" is both undefined and problematic.
d. We need to include the claim that CRT disavows notions of neutrality, reason, and evidence.
(1) Crenshaw states it as a tenet of CRT in the introduction of the "bible" of the field.
(2) This is like a field of science disavowing evidence. It's a significant facet of the subfield, even if every paper in the field doesn't begin "We don't use evidence."
3. Noting the number of schools that teach CRT is unnecessary and belongs in the body, not the lede. The wording is like an ad "By YYYY, over X schools" instead of "In 2002, X schools".
4. The criticism section from the shorter one summarizes all criticism in the criticism section. The other version mentions only two scholars.
In general, the language is poor. It uses phrases like "allegedly". This isn't a court case: it should be "supposedly" or "ostensibly".
Information from the longer lede has already been distributed carefully by Jlevi (thank you!) like "Important scholars..." so now there are repeated sentences.
There are numerous and clear problems with the longer lede, including the "1908s vs. 1987" as discussed above. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The good parts of the longer lede are the parts it shares with the shorter lede: (a) "As the word 'critical'..." (b) its choice to split the assertions of CRT into bullets. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with most of these points. I find that gradualism is a good approach for things like this. I'd suggest introducing one change to the lead at a time, with a justification in the edit summary, waiting a couple days, then doing the next. If reverted on one, then start a new discussion about just that aspect per WP:BRD and don't do any more until that dispute is resolved. Slow and steady. I see you also started a bunch of sections below, but doing so many things at once is likely to backfire. Crossroads -talk- 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It would greatly aid me if you could help with this. I care mostly about cleaning up articles and unfortunately discussions on pages like these are dominated by editors who are adherents of the philosophy. I think my time is much better spent on less contentious articles, and articles like these will remain like this. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest in avoiding repetitious discussions, I might suggest following up on point 2d (the tenets) in a location already started on this talk page: See Talk:Critical_race_theory#Tenets_in_intro. Jlevi (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede Criticism

In the lede, we should definitely use a summary that includes a broad overview of the Criticism section, rather than quoting just two of the opponents. The current version covers most of the important points, but we could add more. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Crossroads, I'm starting with the criticism section of the lede. Please respond here. Criticism of CRT usually boils down to at least 4 key points:

1. Falsifiability - it lacks statements that can definitively be tested

2. Evidence - the evidence does not support it

3. Anti-semitism - this is neither minor nor superficial. See notes about cautionary tropes from Foxman et al.:

  • Powerful Jews control the world.
  • Jews cheat non-Jews.
  • Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind".

4. Neutrality and Objectivity - CRT practitioners argue that there is no such thing as truth, only competing narratives. Obviously, this has generated controversy.

All summaries of criticism should contain these basic points, and this manages to do so in two sentences. Two sentences is certainly not too long. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Peter Wood Summary

Someone deleted the Peter Wood summary. Per BRD, reverted and opening talk page. This nicely summarizes how many academics view CRT. Peter Wood's opinion is WP:DUE and notable considering his weight, and the reputation of the NAS. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think his reaction is DUE for inclusion? He is not a specialist in the field, and his views seem nearly FRINGE. Newimpartial (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this is undue for similar reasons. Further, DenverCoder19, this is a misinterpretation of BRD. This is a very recently added section, and several editors have expressed the idea that it is undue for inclusion. Thus, it should remain out of the article until consensus is established. I suggest self-reverting. Jlevi (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. It is not very recent. Further, he's the head of the NAS. His views are hardly fringe. In fact, they represent how most scholars view CRT. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a source for His views ... represent how most scholars view CRT? That would make a difference. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this would be very helpful. As of now, I see no indication of weight for this source. Given that three participants have expressed the idea that this lacks weight (either in edit summaries or in talk), I am removing this pending re-establishment of consensus. Jlevi (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"By 2002..." in the lede

Per BRD, this doesn't belong in the lede.

1. It's not relevant to the core of what CRT is.

2. It reads as promotional.

3. It's simply copy-pasted from the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed per WP:NOTPROMO. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree also, at least in part, so I have made a change to the text accordingly. BRD, however, doesn't enter into it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial: please address the core contention. This does not belong in the lede. Given agreement by a non-disruptive user, I'm removing it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Considering that your contention is that CRT has not been adopted within the social sciences, sources that document where it is in fact taught and studied seem quite relevant to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you now saying it isn't accepted within the social sciences? DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Negativity of the Article

This article is biased like I have said before. In the views Section, only negative views are put in. No positive ones. I SUGGEST that the views part include positive views and not only negative ones. It should also include a counter to the Criticism section like Approval or something like that. That section should include noteworthy people who support CRT or some parts of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicksnowman456 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't necessary for a views section to be balanced in that respect (see WP:FALSEBALANCE.) That said, some of the current views in the criticism section might be WP:UNDUE - eg. the National Association of Scholars is an advocacy organization, so I'm not sure their opposition here is noteworthy (obviously an advocacy organization will oppose something it was created to oppose.) Rather than dumping in a bunch of supportive opinion pieces (which I suspect would be the result of trying to "balance" it in this way), I suggest removing weaker opinion-pieces by non-experts and trimming the views section down to relevant views by scholars or the like. "George Will has an opinion on this aspect of the culture-war that aligns with his normal position in America's culture wars" isn't really noteworthy in and of itself, and turning the section into a back-and-forth between dueling op-eds wouldn't help anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that would support your additions? Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As stated before (and cited), most scholars do not take CRT seriously. Wikipedia reflects general consensus. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Where do you believe you have produced recent, reliable sources supporting this interpretation? I must have missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your own citation notes how few scholars teach CRT. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Mind pulling out a relevant page number or quote? Not sure which citation you're referring to. Jlevi (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Queer-crit section

I think this section is appropriate for critical legal theory or critical theory, not critical race theory. "Subfield" is a big claim. Can you find a preponderance of authors who place it inside critical race theory.

In a point of terminology, "-crit" usually refers to critical theory. Within the law, it's critical legal theory. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

After looking sources a bit to try to better understand the lines between CRT, queer theory (and queer critical theory and queercrit, if those are distict--I'm frankly unsure), I agree that hesitation before addition makes sense. At some point in the future, once I have a better handle on sources, I suspect that the relationship between CRT and some of these (and this?) other movement would be useful, but I don't yet have the sourcing for that. Jlevi (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like we agree. It's not a subfield of CRT, but maybe CLS, and definitely just Critical Theory. More research needed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Almost. I think there's some confusion in terminology. Queer theory seems a direct product of CLS (and came about around the same time as CRT). But it seems like there is a subset of CRT that directly studies the relation of race to queer-ness. Jlevi (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the "intersectionality". I think that's different from Queer-crit. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Social Sciences"

Is critical race theory part of the "social sciences"? CRT explicitly does not work under the idea that statements need to be supported with evidence. As it's stated in Crenshaw, it does not think that "scholarship can or should be neutral or objective." As stated on Wikipedia, social sciences is a branch of science.

To support the statement that CRT is science, there needs to be support from experts outside the field. Intelligent design calls itself science too. That's not evidence enough. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

CRT comes from legal studies. Is legal studies part of sociology--or social sciences? DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The policy-relevant question is whether the sources used in the article place CRT within the social sciences. Do they? Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Since your preferred version of the lead asserts that, the WP:BURDEN of proof is on you, actually. Without a source, it can be removed. Crossroads -talk- 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Chapter 8 of Somekh and Lewin, Research Methods in the Social Sciences does a pretty good job of establishing that point. I can add a reference if you'd like - I don't need a cn-tag to do so. Though really the reference should be the body and not in the lede. Newimpartial (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Newimpartial. One thing probably worth checking (I don't have the book immediately available) is whether social science is an application area of CRT or whether CRT is part of the social sciences. It's quite an interdisciplinary subject, it seems, so it is probably easy to overstate its relation to a field depending on the source text. It is very clear that CRT is used quite a bit as a qualitative research methodology, so there's just this fuzzy overlap due to its wide usage that might be good to make the reader aware of. Jlevi (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
To be completely honest I see the Venn diagram between CRT and the "Social Sciences" overlapping substantially but with the former not entirely contained in the latter (this is the same way I see CLT, for example). Social Science is probably the least clearly defined of these concepts, but it does have an evident operational meaning that includes essentially all of Sociology, Political Science/Studies, Legal Studies and Studies in Education, and therefore the vast majority of CRT as well. Newimpartial (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A requirement of a 'science' is that it is neutral, objective, and based on evidence. CRT's own practitioners admit that it is not. It would require a substantial source not just to assert that CRT is science but to resolve this apparent contradiction. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a personal opinion you hold, which you apparently feel strongly enough about to WP:EW about it, but it is not in fact what the reliable sources say. The contention is not that CRT is like a physical science, or is a Positivist science, but that it is among the Social sciences, which is a much broader concept. You can't just import your positivist POV (framing science as neutral, objective, and based on evidence is a positivist framing) because you strongly believe it to be true. Philosophical realism, for example, posits an entirely different relationship between theory and evidence than does Positivism. Newimpartial (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This makes no sense. I really don't know how to have a discussion on this basic a philosophical level, and I don't think Wikipedia is the place to. Straight from the article on scientific theory: "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions." DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Newimpartial's right on this, though I recognize that this may seem unintuitive. The contents of articles need to be based on reliable sources. CRT is whatever reliable sources say it is. Otherwise we're getting into wp:SYNTH territory (as I've mentioned on a couple occasions regarding related issues). Jlevi (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

DenverCoder, if Philosophical realism makes no sense to you as a philosophy of social science, then perhaps you should not be editing this article, or not so aggressively. And while Wikipedia is not a reliable source, perhaps this passage from the lede of Social science might help you (while still fairly dated): Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative and qualitative research). Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad we've come to the core disagreement. I didn't realize it was so simple.
It's right there in the article: "science in its stricter modern sense". That modern sense includes evidence. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Do we operate under the same definition of Pseudoscience, "statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method"? What about scientific method? "formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations"?
I've only read discussions this basic on articles like Creationism and alternative medicine, but I can go through these steps in the absence of editors who agree with me and are willing to speak up. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's move this discussion to where we can state exactly what we're talking about and figure it out. See new talk page section. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the relevant question is, "Do reliable sources include Critical Race Theory as a paradigm for inquiry in the social sciences?", not "Where does Critical Race Theory fit in my own, personal categorization of sciences and pseudosciences?" So far, I have only seem sources that include it, and none that exclude it. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You're confusing what SYNTH is. See WP:What SYNTH is not. If two reliable sources state "A is true" and "A => B", it's WP:SYNTH to state "B" and cite them. It is not, however, WP:SYNTH to decide not to include "not B" when the logical lines are this clear-cut. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Also note the useful heuristic, "If someone doesn't like what was said, and they therefore cry SYNTH, others almost certainly will be right to cry foul." DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think you understand WP sourcing expectations. If we have reliable sources that state "C is false" and none that state "C is true", then we don't get to state "C is true" or even "the falsity of C is disputed", even if you find reliable sources that say "A is true" and "If A, then B", because that would in fact be WP:OR. Newimpartial (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting stating "B". I'm suggesting not stating "not B". What serious social scientist would go out of their way to state, CRT is not social science. What journal would they publish this in? DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm making an argument with logic. That's allowed on talk pages. Please refute the core of my argument. My argument is CRT is not science and social science is science, thereforce CRT is not social science. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This is no longer productive. As you can see, this keeps coming back to the core disagreement. Please respond to the talk section below. Please do not respond here. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
DenverCoder, you don't get to decide which Talk sections other editors will contribute to. You can absolutely try to make an argument using deductive logic, but you shouldn't expect it to hold the same weight with other editors as an argument based on evidence.
Also, I'll fix my syllogism for you. We have sources saying "B is false". If we have sources saying "A is true" and "if A, then B" then we don't get to say "B is true" or even "B is contested", because that would be SYNTH. We follow the sources and say "B is false", until a reliable source supports the truth of B. Better? Newimpartial (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Science, Social Science, and Theories

There have been a few disagreements about the definitions of words:

1. Is CRT a "social science"?

2. Is social science science?

3. Is science based on evidence?

4. Does science seek objective truth?

I assert that a preponderance of sources point to the first being no and the rest being yes.

As editors, it's our job to source assertions, but that does not mean quoting the first textbook or pdf on harvard.edu that says the moon is made of cheese.

In particular, there are many objective looking textbooks that explain Intelligent Design is a branch of science. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest not going forward with this discussion, or at least not doing so here. Consider checking out WP:NOTFORUM. I'm not convinced that this conversation will practically move forward the discussion in the context of building the encyclopedia. Jlevi (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
See What SYNTH is not DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. In discussions about basic points of the article, editors have resorted to arguments of the form "science is not based on evidence". I see two productive ways to proceed: (1) Ignore the opinions of these editors (2) Come to an agreement with these editors.
The disagreements about the content of this article have this disagreement at their core. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody has proposed on this page that "science is not based on evidence". Please learn to read attentively and paraphrase accurately. Anyway, the relevant question per WP:V and WP:DUE is, what do the reliable sources say? Not, what do you personally believe to be true? The predominant form of successful argumentation on WP Talk pages is inductive, rather than deductive, by the way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I said. You disagreed with the assertion, 'science is neutral, objective, and based on evidence', so I split it up into two points.
DenverCoder9: "A requirement of a 'science' is that it is neutral, objective, and based on evidence"
Newimpartial: "This is a personal opinion you hold...but it is not in fact what the reliable sources say"
I'm getting very basic here since it sounds like the disagreements we're having are very basic. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"Science", in the broader sense, means systematic, scholarly study. "Social science" as a field generally construes "science" in this broad sense, as Social science confirms. The relationship between theory and evidence is one of the most contested aspects of the philosophy of social science, q.v. Philosophical realism. The expectation that the social sciences be neutral, objective, and based on evidence is one, very specific perspective on the philosophy of social sciences, one associated with Positivism. And one can disagree with positivism and the relationship it presupposes between theory and evidence without therefore holding that science is not based on evidence, which is the straw man you set out, for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
You've written a lot of words. Which of the statements 1-4 do you dispute? You're still missing the core. Does science seek objective truth? Is social science science?
No, science is not just "systematic, scholarly study". Much of theology adheres to its own, rigid, systematic scholarly forms. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I cannot spend hundreds of words debating this basic a point. I've gotten sucked into the trap of debating whether there is such thing as "truth" so we can ever know whether perpetual motion is possible. I'm removing the article from my watchlist. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Luckily there is no need to convince a particular editor of what is or is not science. I certainly have my own opinions of what are and are not worthwhile research approaches, but I won't be sharing them here. All we need to worry about is how RS describe CRT per WP:DUE. If most sources don't relate it to 'social science', then we won't, and vice versa. Crossroads -talk- 06:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond all Reason as a source

As stated (and supported), few legal scholars practice CRT. To support this claim, it is sufficient to observe how few law schools teach it. As such, CRT is a minority opinion.

Few scholars who are not adherents of CRT have gone out of their way to address it. "Beyond all reason" is by far the most comprehensive attempt to do so. In fact, at the time, many questioned why the authors devoted so much time to a fringe theory. See the reviews for Beyond All Reason in "Criticism" talk page section.

Newimpartial (I'm not sure if I should still be addressing her/him), claimed that BAR was not a good source. I believe it is one of the best sources of non-CRT scholars opinion of CRT. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a 20th century rant by two people, so while it might represent some of the initial reaction to Critical Race Theory, it can hardly be referred to as "recent, reliable scholarship". Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the most comprehensive study of CRT by non-CRT practitioners. As for calling it a unreliable, consider the numerous well-regarded scholars in the "Criticism" section who reviewed it well.
This discussion is unproductive. We can hardly agree on anything when we disagree about whether "science is based on evidence". Let's finish that discussion. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
We particularly cannot settle that discussion when you continue to use straw men rather than reading my actual comments. But I would point out again that we are supposed to be basing the article on recent, reliable sources, not the knee-jerk reactions of 20th-century ideologues. Newimpartial (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
While its age may require attribution if the material sourced to it is outdated according to newer sources, BAR is definitely a reliable source, being from Oxford University Press. Calling it a "rant" by "ideologues" is certainly not a dispassionate analysis of its own. Crossroads -talk- 06:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tags in Lede

I believe Newimpartial is engaged in vandalism EDIT 2020-01-20: tendentious editing. There should tags in the lede, including 'page needed' to citations that were as short like "Cole, 2007"--a 100+ page book. Newimpartial reverted all tags with the note "overtagging", leaving no tags in the lede. Considering the specific Cole citation, a 'page needed' tag is neither redundant, wrong, vague, or unhelpful, the standard reasons for removing "overtagging".

1. I could charitably believe Newimpartial feels each tag is inappropriate. "Cole, 2007" is clear-cut: it's a long book and needs a page.

2. I could charitably believe Newimpartial feels there are too many tags--but they why all of them? There should have been at least one.

Newimpartial: why did you remove all tags? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be calling this vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. However, per WP:BURDEN, Newimpartial will have to demonstrate WP:Verifiability by adding the missing citations and page numbers. Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
First of all, as far as I know there is no policy requiring page numbers for references. Also, there is also no policy requiring citations for material presented in the lede if it is also in the body of the article, and the only policy-relevant justification to employ citations in the lede is when material is "controversial", or frequently challenged. The locations where the cn-tag were placed looked BLUESKY to me, e.g., the mention of other contemporary scholarly trends changing the environment for legal scholarship. Well, duh. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Page numbers greatly aid WP:Verifiability. It can be easily challenged otherwise. This is clearly a controversial topic, and people both now and in the future are challenging the claims in the lead, so lead citations are clearly needed. None of that is BLUESKY, which applies to things that don't require pre-existing familiarity with a topic. Crossroads -talk- 21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
So Cole 2007 is covered. The others seem fine from my perspective. Any others need pages? Jlevi (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone through it again. Critical race theory is not 'science'; in fact, critical race theory explicitly does not claim that its statements need to be supported by evidence. Nor is CRT a Theory in the broadly accepted sense. Theories are supported by evidence. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks crossroads for the vandalism/disruptive note. Updated.
Like I said, there are numerous problems with the lede. I believe it's easier to proceed from the shorter version as a starting point. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
DenverCoder, you can't just insist that something isn't "social science" (which isn't synonymous with "science") or isn't a "theory" in the sense of Positivism, and cite wikipedia as a source for those definitions. The policy-relevant question is, what do the reliable sources say about Critical Race Theory, which is why I pointed to a textbook in social science methodology that dedicates a chapter to it. If the reliable sources discussing Critical Race Theory treat it as part of the social sciences, then the article should reflect that, even if YOUDONTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Social science is part of science. Social science begins: "Social science a branch of science..." I think we're getting at the core disagreement, so let's move this discussion to the "is CRT science?" above. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The word "science" has more than one meaning, some narrower than others. Please see the extended quotation I provided above. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of argument I see on perpetual motion pages. All science is based on objectivity. There's no way around it. See WP:What SYNTH is not DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The reliable sources that I have read do not support the contention that all science is based on objectivity, at least where applied to the social, or what the French call the "human" sciences. The belief that the only valid, "scientific" approach to human affairs is to apply the notion of "objecticity" derived from Positivism is just one perspective, and while not quite FRINGE it is certainly a minority view in most of the fields that are relevant to this article. Even most of the scholars using quantitative methods in these areas don't generally do so out of Positivist convictions. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Theoretical framework -> framework diff. I don't particularly care if we call CRT a 'theoretical framework' in particular, but it's clearly a framework employed in various qualitative research contexts. The term framework alone is easily supported by sources beyond what I cite for starters. Does this resolve this small detail? I think it could be argued that it is theoretical as well as a framework, but maybe we don't need to. Eh. Jlevi (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Without a clear meaning of "framework", I think it's better to state what CRT really is: a set of beliefs. The "framework" is critical theory. CRT combines this with a particular view of the law. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
CRT is a perspective that informs various lines of scholarly inquiry. I think "framework" communicates that much more effectively than "set of beliefs". Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think "theoretical framework" was preferable to "framework". Crossroads -talk- 06:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Controversial" in the lede

An author removed "controversial" from the lede. Given the criticism, and the lack of academic acceptance, I think it's appropriate.

I'm open to sources demonstrating that CRT is accepted by most legal scholars, but I doubt it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not typically done even for perspectives held by only a minority of scholars. In which context were you hoping to add this? Instead, if a source exists that states how widely the ideas are held to, it may be better to repeat what that source says. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that it's not necessary for minority opinions; however, this has generated substantial controversy. In fact, most coverage of it notes the controversy. Nevertheless, this seems to be the least of the article's problems. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
When I look for sources on CRT, I do not find "mostly coverage of the controversy", at least not for sources published since 2000. What is the basis for your impression? Newimpartial (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, take the assertion "has generated substantial controversy". I'm not exactly sure where you're looking, but the vast majority of coverage from secondary, non-CRT scholars notes the controversy. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
And why would you limit your coverage to non-CRT scholars? Newimpartial (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:REPUTABLE states that Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (Emphasis added.) So the article should give proper weight to what non-CRT scholars think. That said, we would also cover CRT scholars. Absent a specific proposal it's hard to comment further. Crossroads -talk- 06:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticism is for Criticism

The criticism section is generally for criticism. We should avoid: "Criticism: X said there is a flaw. Rebutting X, Y said it is good."

For example, the criticism section of Mother Teresa reads:

"Abortion-rights groups have also criticised Teresa's stance against abortion and contraception."

It doesn't say

"Abortion-rights groups have also criticised Teresa's stance against abortion and contraception. Responding to this criticism, supporters of Teresa said..."

even though many have responded to this. Except in rare circumstances, we should reserve the criticism section primarily for criticism. If the debate is long enough to be interesting, it should be a different section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenverCoder19 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is, per WP:CSECTION, one of the reasons criticism sections are generally not great things to have - they become dumping grounds for op-eds and the like, covering the topic in an unrepresentative or imbalanced manner. It would be more useful to retitle it and divide it up into the broad debates on critical race theory, covering each according to what the sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I think criticism is a reasonable section to have in good articles, like Intelligent Design. Both 'theories' aren't accepted by the field, so criticism is a large part of them. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, this section is what your revert here referred to. As I mentioned previously on your user talk page, I highly suggest including links to or the name of the specific talk page section that you are referring to. This makes it easier to evaluate edit summaries.
In any case: you have put forward a very concrete opinion on how articles should be written. I'm uncertain here this impression is coming from, but criticism sections are 1) not necessarily the best way to present material in the first place and 2) not necessarily meant to segregate criticism away from responses in most cases. Especially when reliable secondary sources mention and respond to criticism, it is very reasonable to include responses. For a non-policy perspective, see WP:CRIT. Again, this is not policy, but it helps demonstrate the diversity of approaches to criticism in articles and provides some very reasonable suggestions that I have often seen used in practice. If you have some justification based in policy, I would of course be interested in hearing it.
Given this, I suggest that there is no viable reason for your removal that you have yet put forward. If you have no other objections, I suggest self-reverting. Jlevi (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like this wasn't addressed in the flurry of edits yesterday. Added: diff. Jlevi (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning needed for the Critical Race Theory page, as being highly controversial as a racist doctrine against white skinned people.

There should be a pre-emptive warning at the top of this page as follows:

WARNING:CRT is debated as a highly racist doctrine against white skinned people.

There should also be the following explaination on how to determine racist bias in any media:

DETERMINING RACIST BIAS IN ANY MEDIA. There is a simple way to tell if any article or other media you are reading or viewing has a racist bias in its point of view: simply swap out the nouns in the article with another of a different identity. For example, swap out the word "white" with the words "jew" or "black" or "gay" in the Critical Race Theory Wikipedia article to determine for yourself if it was written with racist bias.

LogicFilter (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC).

Realm

The first sentence locates CRT in the U.S.; how-ever, later in the article there is a presentation of a UK Conservative's statement about the illegality of teaching aspects of CRT in schools, presumably in the UK. If CRT extends beyond the U.S., then the first sentence should be changed; if not, then what is the quotation of a British MPdoing un explained in the article? Kdammers (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Advocacy

In the introduction, we read that there are two common themes to CRT, the second being "Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[9]" But reading through the article, it is clear that the second theme is at least as much -- if not more -- about "should" as about "can." Kdammers (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

Critical race theory needs the following line(s) added to the first paragraph.

"Important note of interest is that CRT is heavily based on Nazi ideology, propaganda, and Speeches. So close in fact that changing three words makes it identical. If you change the words white to Jew, America to Germany, and minority/African American to German, you would be committing a hate crime under US law. These issues are why most scholars, politicians, theologians, and the Jewish communities, are working to ban CRT in the United States." 2600:100A:B119:FC79:1BF3:3551:AEB9:90AE (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

add theory 97.90.178.98 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_race_theory/Archive_5&oldid=1164977542"