This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Would it be too bothersome for you to write a coherent sentence so that we can understand what improvements to the article you are attempting to suggest here?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Its garbage because white people are not "over-represented", we're the majority therefore we're the majority in all institutions.
Per US census and Nations definition exclude Sudan and Cape Verde from Sub Sahara. As I understand a reliable sources is more important than a personal or subjective point of view, Therefore for the Sake of Consistency this map  shall be modified to reflect the sources which state
*Sub-Saharan African entries are classified as Black or African American with the exception
of Sudanese and Cape Verdean because of their complex, historical heritage. North African entries are classified as White, as OMB defines White as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
ScrapIronIV, you removed the "Critical race theory definition" section of the article, citing WP:BRD and the need for consensus, but this section has been in the article in some form or other at least as far back as October 2007 (with the section heading existing since October 2010). Surely removing it is therefore the bold edit that requires consensus, not its addition eight years ago? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; I saw its addition this morning, but did not note its removal by the same editor - must have been tired eyes. That sort of thing happens - but I was distracted by its content. One can only imagine how this would be received if its subject were a different culture. I notice there was even a removal of wording of "self identification" a few days ago. While this is clearly a notable sociological theory, its current form certainly lends to undue weight being given within the article. What are the reasons to include such a large section on it? Scr★pIronIV 18:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "if its subject were a different culture". The whole point of the theory is that white people are the dominant racial and cultural group in the US, so it wouldn't apply to other groups. However, there are plenty of sociologists who argue that blackness is a social construct in the same way that whiteness is described as such here. I agree that it's not good to base a whole section on a single author's work, but there are other sources such as The History of White People that could be used here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that including CRT here is problematic. But perhaps at least identifying it as a Marxist idea designed to demonize a group of people and void of factual information might be sufficient. EyePhoenix (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)