Jump to content

Talk:Critical race theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John wiki (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 3 February 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Intro sentence

As written:

Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary examination, by social and civil-rights scholars and activists, of how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity.

Suggested edit:

Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary examination of how laws, social and political movements, and media interact with social conceptions of race and ethnicity. 2603:7000:873B:C200:C1FC:12DC:793D:172A (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you wish to remove "by social and civil-rights scholars and activists, " and change "shape, and are shaped by," to "interact with". These seem like improvements and it simpler. Could "interrelate with" be better or not? We could also get rid of an "and" by moving "media" toward the beginning. So:
Critical race theory (CRT) is a cross-disciplinary examination of how laws, media, social and political movements interrelate with social conceptions of race and ethnicity.
Thoughts? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Critical Methods -- Sec. 001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2022 and 3 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AissiahD (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AissiahD (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also apart of this group for a Wikipedia project. The overall plan for our group is to expand on two subtopics in this article for Critical Race Theory, the subtopics being "Intersectionality" and "Essentialism". We felt that these two sections/subtopics were vague, too short, and/or just needed to be expanded on in general with sources we found. We plan on making our changes the last week of November. Mimimccammon6 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an accurate description of CRT bans!

In paragraph 4: "Since 2020, conservative U.S. lawmakers have sought to ban or restrict the instruction of CRT along with other critical education in primary and secondary schools," is egregiously inaccurate. The inuendo of this statement is that these "lawmakers" are banning something being used in schools. CRT has never been taught as far as I am aware outside of Academia. You don't need to take a political position on what these right-wing propagandists are doing, but you should make an accurate description of what they are doing. I'll give an example of how the statement could have been worded: "While CRT is an analytical construct used in Academia, the term CRT has been co-opted by Republican politicians nationwide as a catchall term to effect their preferred changes in primary and secondary school educational curiculums by using it as a descriptor of policies they disagree with. As such the term CRT has become highly politically charged."

I've made no value judgements here, only described precisely what has happened, and eliminated subtle inuendos benefitting one political view over another which have no place on Wikipedia. I've also used Republican in place of "conservative" which is itself a value judgement made by the writer. Right-wing would be more accurate, but that too could be considered a value judgement. Use the precise language please, as it is one very well defined group who are responsible for this particular action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.39.196.158 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said is included in the criticism section of the article, albeit worded in a much more NPOV style. Political positions are not even a consideration, we go with the consensus among reliable sources.

The political controversy surrounding CRT also has its own article so it would be redundant to include all of this here. The section you quoted includes a link ti this article.

As it stands, your proposal appears more biased than the existing content - I don’t see a problem with the factual accuracy, merely how it reads. I agree we maybe should add (literally) a couple of words in the intro about how public discourse on CRT is often misleading but it would have to be short, the fact is the article is not about the politicisation of CRT so going into such depth would be unwarranted and detract from the main purpose of the article. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 10:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

The sources cited don't seem to talk about resegregation in general, rather that desegregation took a decade or two to finally be removed. 35.1.215.177 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. PianoDan (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we citing another encyclopedia? (Criticism section)

I thought that was frowned upon. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not cite any self published sources, like other open wikis and such. See WP:BLOGS. Encyclopædia Britannica has always been considered a reliable source. See WP:RS. All of its articles are peer-reviewed and can be considered a WP:TERTIARY source. What we do not allow is directly copying from any source. Do you have some objection to the content of that section? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Critical_race_theory&oldid=1137201603"