Misplaced Pages

Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:37, 19 February 2023 editJweiss11 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers607,271 edits →Undoing the whitewashing and advertification: comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:51, 20 November 2024 edit undoAnExtraEditor (talk | contribs)63 edits →Edit Request: Reverting recent vandalism and OR: ReplyTag: Reply 
(198 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{blp}} {{Talk header }}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
{{bannershell|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Organizations|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Education|class=|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Education|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject LGBT|class=c}} {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Culture|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Disability}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{Image requested|in=New York City}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Major POV issues with this article ==
| algo = old(30d)

| archive = Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism/Archive %(counter)d
This article has major POVs and lacks a balance of sources.
| counter = 2

| maxarchivesize = 125K
* The lead states "the board is made up of conservatives who've variously been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia" sourced to the ''Colorado Times Recorder'', which is a fringy upstart news site that may not be reliable. That article sources those accusations to a host of other sites that include activist outlets like ] and ]. BLP issues here for sure.
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
* Also included in the lead is a quote from the '']'' describing FAIR as "horribly misnamed". This article only mentioned FAIR in passing, so inclusion of this opinion in the lead is very undue.
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
* The "Reception" section of body of the article quotes a potentially defamatory claim from ] about ]: "the anti-Muslim activist Hirsi Ali who wants a physical war with Islam."
| minthreadsleft = 3
* The treatment of ] and her documentary film in the "Other lawsuits" section is woefully biased; compare to articles about Smaker and '']''.
}}

<!-- Template:Setup auto archiving -->
01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

:Those are good points.
:I wish to also highlight some specific wording that (it seems to me) is not from a neural POV:
:-- it says "inventing the Critical Race Theory panic" which is not sourced. "Panic" is a loaded POV word. This could be changed to "causing concern about Critical Race Theory."
:-- it says "anti-trans writer Abigail Shrier". Again, this is POV. Her writings are anti-surgery in some cases, not anti-trans. The source for that is Media Matters, which Wiki's perennial source list says is only "marginally reliable" and "as a partisan advocacy group, their statements should be attributed." So either that attack on her needs to be attributed to "the partisan advocacy group Media Matters" or it should be lost.
:-- it calls Chris Rufo as "an anti-civil rights activist", which takes a strong POV. This could be changed to "conservative activist" as it reads on his page. The source for this also appears to be Media Matters, so the same logic applies as above.
:-- This quote: "accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, homophobia, and transphobia" is actually a '''quote''' from the "Colorado Times Recorder." If it is included, it should be formatted as a quote and explicitly attributed. Also, the "Colorado Times Recorder" is not listed as a reliable source on Wiki's perennial sources list, and appears to be fringy new site -- so I suggest that this wording should be dropped entirely.
:] (]) 03:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
::Some changes I made:
::: Moved SA current from the lead
::: Shortened lead's description of the board, added sourced statement to the Colorado Times Recorder in Reception
::: I added a ref for Rufo being "credited with inventing", the source links to a lengthy New Yorker article, and switched the text to "conservative activist"
::Some notes:
::: If you can find more reliable sources to create a "balance", please do, but I wrote this by compiling all the reliable sources on the topic and only left out things like passing mentions, particularly if they echoed something better covered in a reliable source.
::: The Idavox statement is sourced and properly cited, issues of defamation would only be at play if we were stating that in wikivoice
::: The MMFA article gives a source for "anti-trans" where it discusses some highlights, such as her book that endorsed the pseudoscientific theory of ROGD and insisted on misgendering trans teens, her comparisons of trans people to anorexia, self-harm, and involvement in witchcraft/demonic possession. GLAAD lists some more of her greatest hits, such as opposing the equality act, describing trans rights as a "war on women", and more misgendering people. For some more anti-trans activities just off the top of my head, she's an advisor to the conversion therapy organization ]. So not just "anti-surgery in some cases".
::: If the section on Jihad Rehab can be expanded on, please do. But we have reliable sources saying that FAIR and Smaker said the film was being "cancelled" because of her ethnicity and that notable critics insisted that wasn't the case and pointing to their actual criticisms. That seemed to be the relevant bit.
::] (]) 05:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:The lead clearly has issues with IMPARTIAL. It needs to start with factual statements about the group, what is is, what it's stated mission is etc. It is not acceptable to follow every, "the group does X" with "but critics say Y" statements. It also is a problem to have a bunch of subjections with non-neutral headings (Oppose X etc). Given how new this article is, it should probably be draftified until these issues can be sorted out. ] (]) 20:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

:Lots of problems with this article, and NPOV is one of them. Issues include selective use and overuse of sources (regardless of reliability) that lend undue weight. The lead framing the organization as conservative right off the bat seems to rely heavily on the characterization, which I think misrepresents several things: it obliquely labels a handful of advisory members (over ) as "disgraced" including ], ], ] due to ''accusations'' of bad stuff (and the author also cites to justify one of the "has been accused"). Does that seem like something that should be accepted at face value? I won't argue that FAIR lacks conservative members because of course it does, but it is ''not'' described first and foremost as a conservative organization by many prominent sources like the , , , , , , , and I'd be surprised if the majority of sources in this article even frame FAIR as such. While it is true that explicitly calls it a conservative organization, and writes FAIR "describes itself as nonpartisan and “pro-human” while also championing a number of conservative causes in education", the sources that try to explicitly pigeonhole the organization into one of 2 sides seem to be in the minority. Even if the Colorado Times Recorder had a spotless record of factual reporting, its voice should not be elevated above all others.
:Another issue: the "but critics have noted" in the lead's paragraph seems to me a bit of ] and false balance (unless "critic" is a stand-in for "any writer"): neither the or are acting as critics of FAIR by noting it has conservatives on its board. A neutral statement like "Joe has red hair" should not be massaged into "critics have noted that Joe has red hair". The latter source also states "its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals" but are ], ], ], ], ], ], ], Shermer, Pinker, etc. ''really'' examples of prominent conservatives? ] (]) 22:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::* The first NYT source is a two sentence mention that doesn't describe them, except for preceding their mention with {{tq|The pushback against antiracism education has taken on aspects of an ideological uprising}}
::* The second NYT source is a 1 paragraph mention about their involvement, only stating in it's own voice {{tq|The organization, founded by Bion Bartning, has filed other lawsuits challenging what it says are forms of discriminatory overreach by organizations trying to implement diversity programs}}
::* The NBC article is 1 sentence and calls it {{tq|an advocacy group formed last year to oppose “woke ideology.”}} This is basically immediately preceded by {{tq|Some medical professionals have pushed back on the utility of race-conscious policies in health care}}.
::* The Tribune article calls them a {{tq|special interest group}} and says {{tq|The organization, founded in early 2021 by Bion Bartning, claims on its website to be nonpartisan and a nonprofit. Its goals include supporting fairness and a “pro-human mindset,” described as “one human race, individual civil rights and liberties, and compassionate opposition to racism and intolerance that is rooted in dignity and our common humanity.”}}, and {{tq|The organization strongly pushes back against those who would call it partisan}}
::* Newsweek says {{tq|the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, an organization founded by private school parent Bion Bartning earlier this year, whose mission is to oppose critical race theory teachings in schools and promote what it calls a "pro-human" agenda.}}
::* The Deseret article is an interview with a member and only says directly that {{tq|He represents the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding, and humanity.”}}
::* The Telegraph states {{tq|They included the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), a civil liberties group that opposes de-platforming.}}
::The majority of these are 1 sentence passing mentions, or merely state how FAIR describes itself, and are not ] coverage like those that analyze the organization itself in-depth and conclude it's conservative. They barely frame FAIR as anything and aren't particularly due for describing the organization. That being said, some more exposition on the various forms of racial equity measures is due in the lead and these sources could be used for that.
::The Lancaster Online and Valley news aren't the only ones to point out it's heavy conservative backing, and when they mention FAIR they explicitly contrast it's claims to being non-partisan with their board's membership.
::In regards to the members, using just the information already in their wikipedia articles: McWhorter's comments that Black people's attitudes and not white racism are holding them back and equation of anti-racism with racism are not exactly mainstream liberal views. Foster is a libertarian who explicitly opposes anti-capitalism. Haidt labels himself a centrist and is a founder of the ], who's sole purpose seems to be to increase conservative representation in social psychology and claim that universities have a free speech crisis. Williams wrote the initial draft of the ], an open letter decrying "cancel culture" signed by many people known for their history of biased and inaccurate reporting on trans people. Al Mutar has many connections to the ]. Pinker has been criticized for his racist comments and defended the idea that gaps in gender-representation are due to innate biological factors. Shermer is a self-described libertarian who has praised Matt Walsh's ] and agreed with most of it's claims (that part was found by a quick google search of his views on trans people since I remembered hearing the name before). Fang seems to be the only left-wing person mentioned, and his position there is somewhat ironic given his previous reporting on the Koch Brothers. Davis's political ideology is not mentioned, and while I think highly of his work with formers his presence does not determine whether the organization is conservative or not. In short, very few of the people listed are not actually conservative or known for their conservative opinions.
::Suffice it to say, reliable sources have commented on the large amount of conservatives on their board, called it conservative, opposed it's self-description as "non-partisan", and said it is known for pushing conservative causes. ] (]) 19:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

== Category: Organizations that oppose transgender rights ==

Transgender students have a right to be respected in their schools. Campaigning to repeal protections for transgender students to allow faculty and other students to misgender them with impunity is indeed opposition to transgender rights. ] (]) 06:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:Categories should be used to categorize content in neutral matter, not to advance political campaigns. ] (]) 06:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::Where does "advancing political campaigns" come into this exactly? Neutrally speaking, the term for an organization that opposes transgender rights, is "an organization that opposes transgender rights". Do they not do that? ] (]) 06:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Compelling the speech of people who are not transgender is not protecting rights of those who are transgender. It's aggressive ideological authoritarianism. The idea that FAIR opposes the rights of transgender individuals is merely the idealogically-motivated opinion of hard-left activists. That opinion should certainly not be stated in wikivoice, and categories are wikivoice. ] (]) 06:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::::That is your opinion, and on multiple counts just plain factually wrong. We should not include your opinion that misgendering people is OK in wikivoice, for a start see ], where even wikipedia has a set policy on respecting the names and gender of trans people. Faculty and students don't have the right to insult students, use slurs, or discriminate against them based on any immutable characteristic. Does "aggressive ideological authoritarianism" and your apparent free-speech absolutism extends to all forms of bigoted or cruel things a person could say to a student? If a teacher has the right to misgender a student, they have the right to misgender a cis student and refer to them by a name they don't use. Or just plain insult them, maybe toss in a slur. It's protected speech, right? Students have a right to be respected, which includes not being harassed for who they are. Your insistence that it's ok to refuse to use a students name or pronouns solely because they're trans is not reflected by reliable sources. You casting the issue as "hard-left activists" is laughable - I'm sure every trans kid who doesn't have a safe school environment and who's schoolmates or even faculty refuse to respect them isn't really hurting, they're just upset "far-left activists". Trans people are a demographic, not a political or ideological position. In addition, see , where it lays out how in the United States Title IX indeed protects students from misgendering and deadnaming. ] (]) 07:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

:{{reply|TheTranarchist}} I think there is a difference between what you (or some sources) interpret as opposing rights, and how the majority of sources describe the organization. Many of the examples in the overstuffed "Opposition to transgender rights" section do not clearly support the opposition, although you have framed it that way. Opposing policies that may seem on face value to be antiracist or promote equity and transgender protections but may be poorly written or executed seems the MO for this group. ] is a categorization guideline, and subjective categories are discouraged per ]. To keep this category (if it survives scrutiny) on the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people, not that it is simply advocating for measurers that activists think might lead to rights erosion, or that you think are opposing rights. When the ACLU defends the rights of neo-Nazis to march or say hurtful things, that doesn't mean the ACLU opposes the rights of Jews, Blacks, or anyone that may be hurt by the speech. Also, just for the record, one of and is a . ] (]) 05:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::* {{tq|The push for educators to address structural racism has prompted its own outcry, turning critical race theory and new histories such as The New York Times’ “1619 Project” into fodder for the nation’s ongoing culture wars. At Smith College, for example, a former staff member has attracted a passionate YouTube following for criticizing the school’s insistence that employees undergo anti-bias training that centers on white privilege. Several academics recently formed the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.” }}
::* {{tq|A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to circle their preferred pronouns ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.}}
::* {{tq|An organization called FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) says some of the curriculum in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 is anything but fair when it comes to certain issues surrounding gender and race. ... FAIR also suggests that some of the lessons on gender and pronouns may be unconstitutional. While children should have the right to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouncs and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.” FAIR also states that District 65’s lessons on alternative prounouns and “whiteness” are not age appropriate, as some coursework is for pre-kindergarten through third grade (ages 4-9).}}
::* {{tq|The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 '''Student Rights''' and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for transgender students encountering misgendering in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,” O’Neill shared.}} (emphasis added)
::* {{tq|While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside longer-established organizations like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates. }}
::* {{tq|One flier asked, “WHY IS AN ORGANIZATION ‘AGAINST INTOLERANCE’ PLATFORMING TRANSPHOBIA?” Another alleged that FAIR “supports intolerance against trans people accessing healthcare.” The third flier claimed that “LGBTQIA+ books are being banned, trans healthcare is being banned and the ‘Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism’ only cares about banning CRT — and they think states have a right to do so.” ... Alex Klein (24L), who declined to confirm if they put up the fliers, was among FAIR’s critics. They alleged that FAIR gives a platform to transphobia, noting the organization’s webinar “Understanding Gender Dysphoria and Its Impact on Clinical Care.” FAIR promoted the event in an Oct. 17 tweet, which was featured on an opposing flier.}} For reference, they also platformed Lisa Littman and her debunked theory of ].
::Disputed sources (no consensus they are unreliable, especially for the CTR)
::* {{tq|In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. ... In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula.}}
::* {{tq|conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist group}}
::Now to briefly respond to the appeal to tokenism, I raise you one ], conversion therapy advocate and ] founder, who is on the board. Also ].
::You say I {{tq|need to provide sources that explicitly state it is opposing the rights of transgender people}}. There is ample evidence they oppose the right of trans children to be respected and their name/pronouns used in schools. Both the schools in question and federally speaking have recognized the established right of transgender students to respect. FAIR opposes these policies and believes that it should be OK to deadname and misgender people just because you feel like it. By way of analogy, if reliable sources have consistently commented on an organization opposing the right to same-sex marriage, it's splitting hairs and a poor argument to say "Organization opposing LGBT rights" does not apply since sources didn't explicitly use that exact terminology since same-sex marriage is a recognized right. To make it a more specific analogy, the defense that they aren't opposed to LGBT rights, just opposed to same-sex marriage due to concerns about "religious freedom" and "the state forcing a different definition of marriage down their throats", would be a poor defense nobody would take seriously and their self-described motives for opposing LGBT rights would not influence whether we can categorize them as such or not. What that translates to here is that since RS have consistently reported on FAIR opposing an established right of transgender students (due to "religious freedom"), the organization is indeed known for opposing transgender rights.
::If you can find evidence that transgender students do not have the right to be respected and their proper names/pronouns used, bring it up. Until then, not getting deadnamed and misgendered is a recognized right in schools is a recognized right and their opposition to it is well-documented. ] (]) 22:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:::That's a lot of text to say very little. Regardless of what weight we might apply to the green text passages most don't support the label even if we take them as both 100% true and of great weight. The sources that have been viewed as unreliable are the closest to actually supporting the label. Many of them seem to support the view that this is an issue filled with shades of gray and conflicts between things like freedom of speech and a desire to respect others. Since we are using examples, opposing school bussing is not the same as supporting school segregation. A group which opposed bussing shouldn't be labeled as supporting segregated education. ] (]) 23:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I'll keep this short for you then. Your analogy doesn't fit at all - the analogy that same-sex marriage is a recognized right is much better and actually directly related. Bussing and segregation is a completely different issue that doesn't transfer onto this at all. Unless FAIR also campaigns to allow professors to insult students and misgender and use a different name for their cisgender students, they obviously don't give a rat's ass about "freedom of speech" but merely "freedom to deadname and misgender trans students". It is a '''recognized right''' for trans students to have a safe and supportive school environment where they aren't misgendered or deadnamed. Your '''opinion''' that their right to that is debatable doesn't at all outweigh the fact that right is federally recognized.
::::Give evidence that trans students '''don't''' have that right, or accept the fact they do and that no matter what you think of FAIR's reasoning or motives they oppose it. ] (]) 03:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::Please support your opinion with evidence that these are rights vs rules etc. Absent that, there isn't consensus for the tag. ] (]) 03:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::It is recognized as a right in the and by the for a start. I am stating a fact, it is a recognized right to not be misgendered/deadnamed as a student. You are the one who has contributed no evidence and only your opinion that it's not a right. {{tq|evidence that these are rights vs rules etc}} sounds like gibberish ]. ] (]) 05:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Per ONUS you are the one who needs to submit evidence and so far you haven't. Show us the case where that has been challenged and upheld under title 9. Show us exactly what this group is arguing against so we can decide if it clearly violates or falls into the large gray area of how rules are implemented. Certainly saying the use of a deadname is a violation of a right is a claim that would need some strong evidence, evidence which you haven't provided. I don't think you should be accusing others of things like stonewalling. If you want to talk about editor behavior etc please do it at an appropriate noticeboard. ] (]) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I have provided evidence and this is classic stonewalling, but here we go again. The ACLU has cited Title IX in opposition to policies encouraging the deadnaming/misgendering of students of The US Department of Education has confirmed and explicitly stated that Title IX protections extend to gender identity The SPLC confirms trans kids have the right to be respected Here's a version of Title IX from 2016, before Trump ripped out protections for trans students explicitly stating student's right to not be misgendered/deadnamed
::::::::FAIR has argued time and time again that there should not be rules in place preventing students and faculty from misgendering/deadnaming students. That is to say, trans kids should just have to put up with bigots making them uncomfortable in school because of "free speech". From the horse's mouth {{tq|FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.”}} , {{tq|"...the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun," O’Neill shared.}}, {{tq|In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment}} , {{tq|In the instance where a student refuses to use a classmates preferred pronouns, Kim says it gets tricky. “We do encourage everybody to be respectful of everybody else but we also recognize that the use of pronouns is a little bit more complicated,” she said. “It’s not like giving a name or giving your address or giving something similar. It really carries with it a set of underlying beliefs that some students and some individuals may not accept or may not believe in.”}}
::::::::In short, they obviously oppose the established right of transgender students to not be misgendered. That they claim it's in the name of "free speech" and "religious freedom" has nothing to do with the factual statement they do not believe that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. Nor the factual statement being respected in school and not misgendered is a recognized right. Is that enough or do you want to shift the goalpost again? ] (]) 07:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::And once again you claim this is an established ''right''. Interpretations of title 9 have changed and been legally challenged over the years (right to face an accusor for example). You are providing opinions and generalities. You are providing this is a ''right''. This is getting very repetitive. ] (]) 12:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Ok then, goalposts shifted again but lets make this simple, what is your idea of an acceptable source for defining what trans people's rights are? You seem to believe that if governments or human rights organizations say it's a right for transgender students to be respected, they're not to be believed, so ''please'' enlighten us all as to who gets to define rights. ] (]) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::This is a pointless discussion. You don't understand the flaws in your claims so there isn't much to say beyond, you don't have consensus for the change you wish to make. ] (]) 13:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::It is a pointless discussion - the right to not face discrimination/harassment (misgendering/deadnaming) in schools on the basis of gender identity is well established by the US, the UN, and various human rights groups. Your repeated insistence you don't think it's a right is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Your refusal to give an example of an acceptable source for determining whether it's a right proves you don't give a shit about the facts of the matter and just want to shove your opinion down everyone's throat. ] (]) 14:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::If you are certain you are right then you should be able to get consensus to include the tag. ] (]) 15:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

:::#{{xt|combat what they see as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”}}: this statement does not support the assertion of opposing rights (of anyone). It says they combat an overly cynical emphasis, and the word "rights" does not appear anywhere in the (aside from one instance of "right-wing").
:::#Alleging that compelling children to circle their preferred pronouns may violate First Amendment may come close to what you say is opposing transgender rights, but the source does not say this. It takes ] an ] to compare the statement to various laws or declarations and conclude it is opposing a right. Even if it is true, it is not what the source says. The word right does not appear in the .
:::#{{xt|While children '''should have the right''' to declare a personal pronoun voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must use alternative pronouns and announce their own may also violate their religious rights.}} - this is a gray area. FAIR ''supports'' children having the right to a personal pronoun. Whether the second part is in opposition to transgender rights is a subjective issue, and one that is not raised in the .
:::#I'm not sure this says what you think it says. {{xt|FAIR very much supports the additional protection for transgender students}}: doesn't sound like opposing transgender rights to me. {{xt|“I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from using another student’s chosen pronoun,”}} - this is where I think reasonable people can disagree about whether this is opposing transgender rights. But nowhere in the does it explicitly say FAIR is opposing any rights, even though ] may come to that decision.
:::#This source appears to include FAIR along with {{xt|several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates.}} It might charitably be a voice justifying the disputed category. But the brunt of the appears to be on more explicitly anti-LGBT Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke, who may have ties to FAIR. And note "anti-Woke" does not equal "anti-trans" or "anti trans rights". It links to which is misleading in many ways (more below).
:::#College students alleging transphobia by posting flyers is not a reliable source for categorizing. Hosting a controversial speakers, who may say harmful things, is not in opposition to rights.
:::# : this is of unestablished reliability, and I think it gets several things wrong: it misstates as "lawsuit over sex-ed curricula". It correctly states the cites the , but appears to conflate those with "dog whistles" like "schools should educate … not indoctrinate,” and “changing the narrative around ‘colonialism.’” which appear to be Blueprint for Canada principles, not FAIR principles. And it alleges that FAIR defends the 'rights' of students to misgender schoolmates, linking to that does not clearly state that.
:::#{{xt|The Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (CPAN) is the latest addition to a group of conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist groups in Colorado that include the Independence Institute, FAIR....}} Even taking this as reliable and at face value (and inferring anti LGBT means opposing transgender rights), this, and the other sources, do not seem to make the case that "opposing transgender rights" is a trait that is commonly and consistently used by reliable sources per ] and contra ]. If it takes the judgement of readers to decide that action "X" is in opposition to trans rights, whether comparing it to a local district ordinance or Federal law or the ], but it is not stressed or made clear in published reliable sources, then Misplaced Pages should not construe it as such in prose or categories: that is ]. ] (]) 00:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:::#:2. This only makes sense if you take the absurd position that asking someone how they want to be referred to is "compelled speech". For example: {{tq|A different incident report attached a “get to know you” form distributed by an unnamed French teacher that allegedly asked middle school students as young as 12 years old to ... In Kim’s letter, she contends that such compelled speech is prohibited under the First Amendment.}}
:::#:3. Imagine if they'd said that about gay kids: {{Tq|While children should have the right to declare voluntarily, FAIR says “Teaching students that they must may also violate their religious rights"}}
:::#:4. Once again, if they'd made the same comment: {{tq|The Fairfax County School Board conducted their regular board meeting June 16 to vote on and deliberate amendments to the 2022-2023 Student Rights and Responsibilities (SR&R) handbook. On the minds of many attending the meeting were recently added protections for students encountering in school. Upon the origin of this protection, concerns surrounding its conflict with the first amendment’s free speech protections for offending students became apparent. And on May 26, Attorney for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) Leigh Ann O’Neill expressed this concern in a letter to the school board. While FAIR very much supports the additional protection for students, they were pleased to see the document’s new language including the term “malicious” to help discern between events of malintent and free speech. “I think that was a positive adjustment that the school board made because it is taking into account the intention of the student who might have a sincerely held belief that prohibits them from }}
:::#:5. How does anti-trans actually manifest in the world if not campaigning against trans rights?
:::#:7. Thank you for linking FAIR's website! Let's see what they say:
:::#:* {{Tq|We support the rights of individuals to use for themselves whatever pronouns they wish and, in the case of minor children, we support pronoun usage that is consistent with the fundamental due process rights of their parents or legal guardians. We do not, however, support institutional or ideological pressure on individuals to conform to, accept, or adopt ideas, behaviors, and opinions that do not align with their own beliefs, values, and temperaments, which would result in compelled speech.}} IE - kids should be misgendered and deadnamed if that's what their parents want and schools should not have rules preventing deadnaming/misgendering.
:::#:* That page also links to their : {{tq|While we understand the importance of creating environments of tolerance, requiring students to use the preferred pronouns of others, under threat of harassment charges, violates their First Amendment rights ... Requiring students to use others’ preferred pronouns (and punishing them if they do not) necessarily compels them to affirm faith in a ] they may not accept.}} The whole letter is about how schools should out students to parents without their consent and why because of "free speech" and "religious freedom" you can't tell students to respect other's pronouns. Medical consensus is that misgendering causes psychological harm, which FAIR also denies in this letter. Trans kids are not an ideology, and you don't need to have any beliefs to accept them and treat them with respect, FAIR in this letter continuously argues that merely accepting that transgender people exist is an "ideology".
:::#:8. Also mentions their homophobic/transphobic board members. Homophobic links to the GLAAD entry for someone who has been both protested against gay and trans rights.
:::#:Per my earlier analogy, if multiple reliable sources note that an organization is known for opposing same-sex marriage, but don't specifically call it an LGBT right, is it SYNTH to say they oppose LGBT rights, given that same-sex marriage is very much recognized as an LGBT right? ] (]) 01:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I feel we may be ] here. We should be basing our article on what reliable sources explicitly say, not what they infer. But let's see what others have to say. Cheers, ] (]) 01:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

:Support removal of category. There is a clear difference between what this group advocates and opposing transgender rights. I will note that transgender rights is a nebulous term since there isn't a clear definition of what is a right vs something transgender advocates are advocating for. As an analogy, a group opposed to school bussing might oppose it based on racist grounds or they may oppose it for other reasons. It would be inappropriate to label an anti-school bussing organization "racist" because some opponents to their activities have used the label. That appears to be the case here. ] (]) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:I think the category should obviously be '''included'''. It seems the problem people have with inclusion is they aren't convinced that "transgender rights" includes the right to transition in school without harassment (by malicious, intentional, repeated misgendering). The ] calls this a trans rights issue. Obviously a single group saying something doesn't make it so. But anyone familiar with the issue knows that the views expressed by that are representative for most LGBT organizations. It's also representative of the language many educational organizations use.
:Here's the ACLU calling these issues transgender rights
:IMO the balance of sources is pretty overwhelming that this is a trans rights issue. Even the sources that oppose these policies will acknowledge that this is usually framed as a trans rights issue. The same sources even refer to "trans rights activists". The number of people who don't see this as a trans rights issue is vanishingly small. ] (]) 15:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::I think part of the issue is where are the lines. Let's go to the horse's mouth . The group clearly states they think preferred names and pronouns should be respected but they also say that compelling students (not faculty and staff) to respect those runs in opposition to established rights like freedom of speech. This is one of those your freedom to swing your hands ends at the tip of my nose sort of things. It's not at all clear that it's a right to compel others to respect pronouns etc. This is like pro-gun people claiming conceled carry laws violate their rights. It may in some way restrict their rights but it's not clear that that restriction is unacceptable. As a society we are rather early in the process of understanding how to balanced the rights and freedoms of those who are trans vs those who aren't. Applying this label given the appearance of an an effort simply to tar the organization and push a POV (a concern already raised on the page). This is clearly not a BLUESKY case nor do we have strong sourcing supporting the label.] (]) 16:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Their rationale is irrelevant. Opposition to civil rights is very rarely stated as such. ] (]) 16:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::IE, the group clearly states that transgender students should not have the right to not be misgendered. It's like saying, we don't support discrimination against X group, we just don't believe discrimination should be banned... Your freedom to say whatever you want ends in a school system where students have a basic right to respect. For example, teachers can't say, despite religious freedom and freedom of speech, "if you're gay you're going to hell" (which has happened to me and friends before).
:::But for a cherry on top, here is an official : {{tq|OCR has received inquiries regarding whether OCR's regulations are intended to restrict speech activities that are protected under the First Amendment. I want to assure you in the clearest possible terms that OCR's regulations are not intended to restrict the exercise of any expressive activities protected under the U.S. Constitution. OCR has consistently maintained that the statutes that it enforces are intended to protect students from invidious discrimination, not to regulate the content of speech. Harassment of students, which can include verbal or physical conduct, can be a form of discrimination prohibited by the statutes enforced by OCR. ... In summary, OCR interprets its regulations consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, and all actions taken by OCR must comport with First Amendment principles. No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment.}} ] (]) 16:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::More circling. The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory. Saying that a school can't missgender a child is different than saying a school can't tell a student they can't missgender. That is where rights are colliding and seems to be the crux of what FAIR is concerned about. Also, please don't confuse Title 9, a law that applies to schools that accept public funding, with a right. If it were a right it would apply to all schools. Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated. However, that doesn't mean those who oppose are acting in bad faith any more than someone who is against race based admissions quotas in schools or against school bussing is doing so for bad faith reasons. Being opposed to a portion of one aspects of the rights trans-activists are fighting for doesn't mean someone/a group is opposed to "trans-rights" blanket statement. Anyway, since this is still going nowhere let's drop off and let others voice their views. ] (]) 17:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq| The problem now is we are getting into FORUM territory.}} Correct. That's why it's best to stick to what relevant sources say. Many sources have been provided showing that LGBT groups regard this as a trans rights issue. I think the point of the USDOE link wasn't to say that the USDOE is the arbiter of what is and isn't a right. Instead, it's just another source talking about these issues in the context of civil rights. Hence the category. ] (]) 17:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::And we don't have sourcing sufficient to apply the tag. ] (]) 18:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::We do, your opinion on whether transgender rights includes the right to be respected in schools is completely irrelevant. {{tq|Should it be a right? That is a question that can and should be debated.}} - Yes it should since trans kids shouldn't be discrimated against or harassed in school due to their gender, that right is already is recognized as such, and such "debate" (ie, saying they should just have to put up with such harassment) is just bigotry plain and simple. The idea that it's acceptable for students and faculty to misgender students and make them uncomfortable is wholly ], not supported by any evidence, and just your opinion. ]. ] (]) 18:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, dropping the stick is a good idea. ] (]) 18:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::I have to agree with Sativa here. It seems abundantly clear that the category should be included. This IS a trans rights issue and the page should state it as such, and it should be stated that the organization opposes trans rights. This seems pretty simple and I'm not sure why the handful of editors on here doesn't recognize this. ] (]) 16:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
:::'''Exclude'''. ] do not explicitly say the organization opposes transgender rights. This is ] ]. ] (]) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::If an organization is widely known and reported to oppose same-sex marriage, but sources do not explicitly state "they oppose LGBT rights", just "they oppose the right to same-sex marriage", is it ] and ] to say they oppose LGBT rights? If not, why is the situation any different here? ] (]) 18:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
::::It seems that the sources do show this from what I've read from this discussion. Organizations will not always directly say they oppose trans rights, but likely try and disguise it behind nice language. ] (]) 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

== Reliable sources ==

], Passage (https://readpassage.com/), and the Colorado Times Record are not reliable sources for contentious material. Idavox is clearly an activist outlet. Passage and Colorado Times Record are a non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites. None of them should be cited as they are in the article. The onus is on those citing sources like these to show they are reliable, not the other way around. ] (]) 06:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

:Idavox is an independent anti-fascist website and the publication wing of the ], it is biased but that does not mean it can not be used. Also, open anti-fascism is just explicit human decency. Some quick searching finds:
:: From : {{tq| runs both One People’s Project, which documents the activities of the far right while issuing calls to action, and Idavox, which publishes news articles expanding on that research.}} The article generally credits Jenkins, OPP, and Idavox with doing reliable in-depth research that mainstream outlets don't cover.
:: Jenkins and Idavox have been used as a source by the
:As I don't currently have the time to do a full in depth review of Jenkins, the OPP, and IdaVox, suffice it to say any search will show that Jenkins has been recognized as a Subject Matter Expert in the field of right-wing organizing for decades and him and his organizations have been credited and used as a source by many reliable sources.
:The meets all our benchmarks for being a reliable source. They are non-partisan though progressive, have a clear policy on factual errors and misinformation, in addition to retracting such information, and have been linked/named in stories across dozens of reliable sources. The team is made up of established journalists and has a named editor. They clearly delineate between opinion pieces and fact-based reporting. NBC news has praised it's reporting on what other local outlets won't.
: has editorial staff, a clear corrections and fact-checking policy, and issues corrections. They primarily work with freelance journalists, but that is neither here nor there. They are a non-profit and they clearly delineate between opinion and news. They are openly left, but biased does not mean can't be used.
:In short, there is nothing glaringly suggesting these sources are unreliable, and a lot suggesting they are. They are biased, but that is not synonymous with "can not be used". I could not find any mention of any of them publishing incorrect information (barring disclosed corrections on their part). ] (]) 06:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::What's the standard for a reliable source then? Any website like Passage that has an editorial masthead? Why would a third-party RS report about them publishing incorrect information? They're too low profile for most anyone to notice. ] (]) 20:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::Any source that declares itself to be an "independent anti-fascist" website should not be assumed to be reliable. I see no reason to think the "One People's Project" would be treated differently than other special interest/advocacy groups. ] (]) 20:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Record are all marginal activist sources that do not qualify as reliable sources for contentious material. ] (]) 21:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Also per the mention of Idavox's connection to the SPLC, it's worth noting that just a few years ago the SPLC had to retract defamatory content about Hirsi Ali and ] in concordance with a $3+ million settlement. ] (]) 21:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::::The Colorado Times Record meets every standard for a ] and Passage seems to meet most, the only thing to check for them is how established ] have covered them and described their work. Neither are "marginal activist" sources as people keep saying.
::::Idavox is indeed biased, but that doesn't mean can't be used. "Anti-fascism", for that matter, is the least biased position towards fascism, since "pro-fascist" websites are hardly going to be reliable for reporting on fascism. Being opposed to fascism is just basic human decency. Additionally, the OPP, Idavox, and Daryle Lamont Jenkins are widely known and respected for reporting on the niche topic of right-wing organizing. Reliable sources tend to use their research, one of the signs they themselves are a reliable source, and none have spoken to any factual innacuracies from them, another sign. With attribution, any lingering doubts about their use as a source disappear. ] (]) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::What is a "pro-facists" website? I think Mussolini died in the 1940s. Sure Franco lived on for quiet a while but who are these "facists" that need to be resisted? What groups call themselves pro-fascist? Do you have examples of RSs using their research? We rarely accept citations to the Cato institute yet they are well known and long established. I see no reason why this group should be given so much weight without a third party RS citing them first. ] (]) 23:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Solely off the top of my head: the ], Aryan Freedom Network, ], the National Reformation Party (originally called the "American Blackshirts Party" in the early 2000's), the American Nationalist Initiative, and the ]. Many of these explicitly describe themselves as fascist and have had their own websites and publications where they brag about it and publish articles. If you want even more examples of fascists (no need for scare quotes around the word) that need to be resisted see or for a start. Generally speaking, it's hard to miss the worldwide resurgence of the fascist movement unless you have your eyes superglued shut or solely rely on publications which glue their own eyes shut for you. The ] is a propaganda arm of the Koch brothers, hardly equivalent with an independent news organizations researching the far right. ] (]) 15:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I would have a lot more sympathy for you POV were it not for the fact that 1. CATO is well respected even if their POV is known. They even have a number of Nobel laureates in their ranks over the years. 2. If you treated other "news" sites equally. Here you have an activist news site that you claim is fine yet if the "activists" are Cristian that isn't OK . I can see removing the Cristian site as an iffy source (even though the claims it was being used to support were hardly contentious) but you are defending a very questionable source and using it extensively. Anyway, it doesn't appear there is consensus for it's use. ] (]) 19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Are they known for serious investigative journalism or just reports? There's a difference between a news agency and a conservative think tank. One reports xyz verifiably happened, the other reports I think xyz should happen because abc, bringing it up is comparing apples to oranges. While these pieces are being discussed here and have not been previously, past discussion of the found it unreliable. Current discussion of the is inconclusive, and those who find it reliable seem to find so solely on facts regarding to Catholic affairs. I have in good faith defending the limited use of a source and defended it by citing relevant details and wikipolicy- you have not cited relevant wikipolicy once and seem to think by continuously saying you think it's an "activist" source and bringing up inapplicable comparisons the discussion is over. ] (]) 00:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I said nothing about the Daily Signal and wasn't referencing it. Since it was in the edit I indicated I should have made that explicitly clear. ] (]) 00:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:Just as a general point of reference, I did a quick Google News search for this organization. The first two hits don't do anything to make people suspect this is such a controversial organization , . Not an extensive search but hardly a case of asking an extremist group to lunch. ] (]) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
::What is basically an advertisement for an event they're hosting and an interview with the founder are not representative of the sources or even due for inclusion in the article. ] tend to be a lot more critical. Sources that describe them according to their PR and just copy their mission statement tend to have only a passing mention, while significant coverage tends to point out their mission statement and explicitly contrast it with their conservative leanings and actions. ] (]) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

:Idavox may be marginally reliable in certain cases, but there is no compelling reason to give them an entire paragraph block quote, nor "the final word", as this article does. They are not a mainstream source, regardless of reliability (and the is not a straight news piece). ] means we summarize view in proportion to their prominence: we don't give undue weight to the views of small groups, even if we agree with them. What Idavox thinks of '']'', for instance, has little relevance to this article. ] (]) 03:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
::The first part of their commentary in Reception could indeed be shortened to just say they objected to them describing themselves as a "civil rights group" to their board members and their histories. The second could be shortened as well to contain less of their true but run-on descriptors and highlight their analysis the board skews right and far-right, with a large number of Quilette contributors, Koch employees, and transphobes.
::How does this version work?
::{{tq|Idavox described FAIR as "Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing" and said "it's not a civil-rights organization". They stated that their analysis of FAIR's board of advisors revealed a large number of ] employees, ] contributors, and transphobes}}. ] (]) 16:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Why should we include Idavox's description at all? It seems like an activist site. If their opinion on this subject is due shouldn't we find it in third party RS? ] (]) 23:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
::::It's an independent news website, see the section added below. ] (]) 15:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't think Idavox's commentary is due here. With al due respect, TheTranarchist, your tendency to seemingly squeeze ''everything'' ever published on a subject into a Misplaced Pages article, from student newspapers to anarchist newsletters, aught to be tempered. Your articles are often ], regardless of who gets cited. ] (]) 09:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I actually leave out 1-sentence passing mentions and for any article about 1/3 - 1/2 of sources. My rule of thumb is an source should have a who-what-when-where-why to merit inclusion in an article - discuss concrete things they've done that are considered noteworthy. Anarchist newsletters and student newspapers aren't in and of themselves inherently unreliable. For the former I've yet to hear anyone complain an article relies on neo-liberal and corporate sources, only anarchist/left-wing sources have their politics explicitly name-dropped as somehow damning while corporate media somehow exists in an apolitical ether. For the latter, those only tend to be relevant when it comes to things directly involving a school, in which case they're reporting is usually in-depth and very directly relevant. I'd prefer a thorough / over-detailed article to an under-detailed slipshod one any day of the week, it's easier to try and summarize and trim down an article that mentions everything than to try and squeeze more things in piecemeal.
::::In regards to Idavox specifically, see my section below. Additionally, Idavox's article was not some passing mention, but a ] source that devoted an article to analyzing their actions, their board, and their funding. Their weight and how much we should use from them and how is debateable, but they should certainly be included. ] (]) 15:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
:@] There is no local consensus that the Colorado Times Recorder is not a reliable source. You said {{tq|Colorado Times Record are a non-notable left-wing opinion/essay sites}} and @] called it a {{tq|marginal activist source}}, the only two to have objected. Neither of you have responded to my citations of the relevant wiki-policy or the fact that established RS laud them for their coverage and consider them to be reliable. Them being "marginal" and "non-notable" has been proven false. "Activist" is a meaningless buzzword reeking of ]. Their article is a ] source and definitely merits inclusion. Per ], {{tq|The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. }} Please self-revert. ] (]) 19:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::In everyone else's view here, everyone else's arguments are better. That's a consensus. ] (]) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Not on Misplaced Pages. Or anywhere for that matter. Relevant text in bold, {{tq|'''the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view'''.}} And here, {{tq|everyone else}} is '''two''' people who have directly objected to the CTR with one sentence each, and not provided any detailed arguments as to why, or contradicted evidence given proving it is a reliable source and not as "marginal" and "non-notable" as suggested. Repeating you don't like it or you think it's "activist" carries {{tq|no weight whatsoever}}. ] (]) 19:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:For reasons that I have stated on ], I also object to the use of these three sources for citing contentious facts, as they have been cited here. If there are reliable secondary sources that give this information, providing them and citing them would be much more productive than back-and-forth reverts over the use of subpar sources.
:I am also generally concerned about the lack of ideological attribution given to some of the partisan sources in the article; ] offers as examples {{tq|According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...}} and {{tq|The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...}} but we're omitting a note regarding the political affiliations of several sources that get addressed with in-text attribution, such as the explicitly partisan ], and this is an issue in terms of how we're representing the sourcing in the article. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:I've commented on the RSP noticeboard about these sources, but I just want to add here as well that the Colorado Springs Reporter appears to be an '''excellent''' source, and nobody has provided a single valid argument for its exclusion. It has an editorial board with stellar credentials. Opinion is clearly separated from news. Furthermore, the specific article was republished by *another* Colorado Springs institution with editorial oversight, the ] . I see absolutely no reason this source should be considered unreliable. ] (]) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

== Idavox ==

An even more robust case could be built by including "one people's project" and "daryle lamont jenkins" in the search, but for simplicity's sake these are the results of a google news search for "Idavox".
: Links to their reporting (with attribution)
:: : {{tq| Daryle Lamont Jenkins, who reported on the event for independent antifascist news website Idavox, confirmed that Stein attempted to “troll” the crowd. }}
:: : {{tq|The Clark brothers appear to have followed Spencer closely. They posed with him outside the White House at the April rally and the following month, they attended another Spencer rally outside the White House, Idavox previously reported}}
: Links to their reporting (without attribution)
:: links to two separate Idavox articles to back up their statements. One had originally been linked in another article
:: links to their reporting on how far-right activists who'd previously supported Charlottesville distanced themselves from it after
: Refers to their youtube channel/videos/photos
:: Uses Daryle's photos from a KKK rally
:: also uses a video he'd taken of the rally
:: Idavox caught Ramos pepper spraying people on video
: Serious coverage of Idavox/Daryle/OPP themselves
:: : {{tq|One People’s Project was launched in 2000 as a platform to disseminate information about fascist and white supremacist figures and groups. ... “One People’s Project was formed because people weren’t talking about the things that we felt were important to talk about,” Jenkins says. “If you see a need that isn’t being tended to, there’s nothing stopping you from tending yourself.” ... He runs both One People’s Project, which documents the activities of the far right while issuing calls to action, and Idavox, which publishes news articles expanding on that research.}} The article goes very in depth into how Idavox has been doing reporting that mainstream sources hadn't been touching and praises their coverage in comparison.
:: : {{tq|The Black man was Daryle Lamont Jenkins, an Air Force veteran who has spent the past 20 years sniffing out and exposing white supremacists across the nation, but especially here in New Jersey. Jenkins, head of the New Brunswick based One People’s Project, posted the entire November 2021 Princeton confrontation on YouTube and his popular website, Idavox}}
:: : {{tq|Daryle Lamont Jenkins, an antifascist researcher who has tracked the far-right for decades and runs One People’s Project, which monitors hate groups.}}

In short, just a quick search of Idavox, not even Jenkins himself or the OPP, reveals that Idavox is considered by reliable sources to be an independent news website with a focus on reporting on fascism. They consider it reliable enough to just link directly to their research to back up claims. I have yet to ''ever'' see a reliable source mention Daryle, Idavox, or OPP and call their research/reporting into question. ] (]) 15:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

:As I noted on RSN, this source neither has an editorial board, any editorial oversight, a corrections policy, nor any other trappings of a reliable source. Merely being one guy's blog doesn't make it reliable, even if that person is a journalist (see: Max Blumenthal's blog, '']''). ''NJ Monthly'' is an extremely weak source—it's literally an advertising magazine for restaurants and New Jersey's local businesses—not the sort of thing that offers credence to a source that it's citing. Likewise, ] is ] and ''The Progressive'' is a of ]—neither of these plausibly contribute to affirmative ] in a way that would be able to overcome the critical deficiencies in the site's editorial oversight. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 21:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

== POV page by avowedly POV editor ==

Through the use of activist non-], ] ], and more this page fundamentally violates the core Misplaced Pages policy of ]: "'''representing fairly, proportionately''', and, as far as possible, '''without editorial bias''', '''all the significant views''' that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Furthermore, the creator of the page, {{u|TheTranarchist}}, has publicly stated they are here to create a certain biased version of the page to advance their own POV (the link to their social media account is publicly shared on their userpage):

<blockquote>Just published a #wikipedia article on the #FoundationAgainstIntoleranceAndRacism, AKA #FAIR. '''An organization with a name that screams double-speak and a tale of #racism, #transphobia, and #rightwing astro-turfing''' and culture warring...


== July 2023 edits ==
'''So who are these guys? Simply put, a crew of #racist and #transphobic / #antitrans conservative intellectuals''' (think #quilette and the #kochbrothers) who helped push the #CRT panic into the American mainstream by aiding legal battles and infiltrating school boards across the country...
This is much more balanced than what is currently up. I removed it because it is incorrect, but someone reverted it, so I'm guessing one needs to pitch an alternative.


Regarding: "FAIR had often opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures." FAIR does not oppose DEI, see here for their institutional position: https://www.fairforall.org/understanding-the-issues/#idgroups
'''They're also incredibly transphobic''', which is how I found out about them originally...


Full relevant passage:
I wanted to clear up for the record that '''FAIR have been transphobic and racist from the start'''...</blockquote>


"FAIR believes that diversity, equity, and inclusion are laudable goals for any institution, as they increase a sense of belonging and allow each individual to bring their personality, background, and perspectives to the table. FAIR uses the commonly understood meanings of these words: “Diversity” refers to the existence of unique individuals with different experiences. “Equity” refers to the quality of being fair and impartial. “Inclusion” refers to welcoming diverse people and viewpoints and making all people feel a sense of belonging, regardless of their immutable traits. FAIR recognizes and understands that others may use these terms differently, but we do not cede the values they are intended to represent. Institutions benefit from pro-human efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion because they allow individuals to see themselves and others as full human beings instead of representatives of identity groups." ] (]) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
So this page violates core ], ], and ].
:that said, one can likely say that FAIR disagrees with the common interpretation and implementation of DEI initiatives. We should assume good faith that their stated values are their values, and then caveat that their definition of these values and their proper application can conflict with popular definitions and applications. ] (]) 20:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
::@Sideswipe9th - thanks for the feedback - new here. Would it not be more precise though to indicate who is saying it, as opposed to conflating that with the organization they wrote the article under?
::The line between opinion article and non-opinion article is not always clear (and policies on that within media orgs have changed over time), and to give any group or person a particular political label is certainly not a fact - it's an opinion. So that said, would it be better to lean on the side of caution and allow more precision in this case?
::I also think that putting the weight of the Washington Post behind the claim can be reasonably interpreted as an appeal to authority framing, given its good reputation. But that is a separate qualm. ] (]) 21:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


I think the lede would be improved with a stronger focus on FAIR's notability and removal of what they say about themselves. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/is-it-possible-to-be-both-moderate-and-anti-woke should be used in the article, and may help with notability and describing FAIR. --] (]) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
{{u|TheTranarchist}} is arguably ] to build an NPOV encyclopedia. Therefore, I would argue that this page either needs a fundamental re-write or should even be deleted and recreated in a more neutral fashion. ] (]) 21:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)


:I just went through some of the above talk under 'POC page by avowedly POV editor', and am weary to continue as I don't see the concerns of a signifiant amount of editors being addressed (e.g., @], @], @Loksmythe, AnimalParty!, BonaparteIII), and don't want my time and effort to go to waste. Should the page be deleted and rewritten or should the group go through (the probably unwanted) process of discussing NPOV issues one by one? It seemed these suggestions didn't come to an answer above, so just putting these questions out again.
:This is spurious on multiple accounts.
:On a similar note, what is standard procedure when an article is viewed as not adhering to NPOV by a reasonable amount of editors (and probably other rules? - I'm new to wiki editing), but there is no significant deviation from the disputed version that is published currently? My own two cents follows, take it or leave it (although I fear this article has become a battleground and not a dispassionate place to record information as impartially as possible, so I'm judging a sufficient number will leave it, and my contributions will be categorized under a 'side' - *cue a cynical sigh*). Those two cents: for Wiki to have any credibility, it ought to uphold NPOV wholeheartedly; no reasonable opposition should dispute NPOV of an article without action being taken. Of course this article is not going to make or break Wiki's credibility, I'm not arguing that.
:I have provided the evidence that Idavox, Passage, and the Colorado Times Recorder and their usage in the article are in line with our reliable sources guidelines. It's interesting and hard to assume good faith that instead of responding to those points raised, you unilaterally cast it as not a RS and call for the page's deletion here. Even if consensus was not obtained here, the appropriate place is the RS noticeboard, not to call for the pages deletion. The 3 sources that some have raised issues with are not magically outweighing the other ~40 sources cited and are by no means the backbone of the article. "Activist" is a meaningless word in this case, for Idavox, which no reliable sources have described in such terms, but especially for the other two.
:There seems to be a middle ground, as mentioned above, that would move us closer to NPOV (without having to thrust upon others challenges to 'prove it' by finding more articles). To add to that line of thought, HXA is not a relatively widely discussed organization by big name sources across a wide range of perspectives. So that above challenge seems to be unfair. I think its reasonable to say (can we agree on this?) that the sample size of articles on HXA is lacking (or leaving much to be desired) in size, and in its spread / representation of diverging interpretations of HXA (that are of significance to us as 'encylopediers' / are not fringe).
:That I am {{tq|here to create a certain biased version of the page to advance own POV}} is bullshit and putting words in my mouth. I don't have to like a group to objectively list what they've done, what they're known for, and their history. I created a page after I learned about them, a general per-requisite to writing about any topic. Then I collected all the RS, and wrote the article based on those, and nothing I said in that summary listed there (published after the article) is false. They are incredibly transphobic and they have pushed against measures that address systemic racism, that's not a POV that's just a statement of fact. It's not my fault the RS are overwhelmingly critical, and I welcome you to find the mythical ] sources I did not include that will make this page suddenly ].
:But my inference from previous discussion it is unlikely we will get to that more neutral middle ground. What is the best process then? Do we have to go to mediation? Is that frowned upon for tabling (I don't want to insult people here, I read in the getting to know Wiki editing content that certain suggestions can be taken the wrong way).
:In terms of ], I followed the sources, and have even worked to make the article more neutral with others suggestions. I included everything they did and supported, whether I agreed with it or not, broken clock is right twice a day and all that. I have added no ], as I've only listed what the group is known for and does. I did not say anything they do or say is incorrect, unless reliable sources said so. It's not my fault they've barely done anything good. In terms of ], I created the page, and every single comment raised I have addressed and endeavored to fix. When there has been disagreement, I have given all my sources and reasoning and explanation of the relevant wikipolicy.
:Let's work together here. Cheers. - me :) ] (]) 03:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:This is a sickeningly cheap attempt to trash the article by citing a discussion about the reliability of 3/41 sources as evidence the whole article should go, without actually contributing to the discussion or trying to achieve consensus. This article represents {{tq|fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic}}. Prove me wrong by showing the sources that disagree. I'll wait ] (]) 00:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::Ooops, just wrote the wrong ORG (The Heterodox Academy ) instead of FAIR. My questions and concerns still apply - please ignore the error.
::The only thing I would add is that FAIR might possibly be slightly more well known (from my estimation), and possibly (?) more likely to be interpreted as conservative by outsiders. ] (]) 03:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:::AnExtraEditor, the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. You may want to take a stab as writing a new version. ] (]) 04:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


Just to note, I've moved this off to its own section as it was difficult to find this in the long stale discussions above. I'll reply to some of this shortly. ] (]) 02:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::TheTranarchist, on Loksmythe's claim of "Tendentious editing", I agree that you have been civil and very responsive when challenged on content. But ] also includes elements of POV and intention/purpose. It's pretty obvious that this article was created its initial form in order to make FAIR look as bad as possible, as a part of what appears to be a larger effort of very left-wing political advocacy. ] (]) 01:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::It was not created to make FAIR look as bad as possible, it was to fairly represent what the reliable sources have to say about them. As I have challenged above, if anyone can find ] that do not generally have the same format (FAIR claims to be non-partisan, here is a review of their activities and people involved, we conclude they are a conservative organization/ one primarily stacked with conservatives who oppose what they call CRT, which often isn't and is a catch-all buzzword), they are free to do so. However I am extremely confident in my statement none exist, as I methodologically compiled every reliable source on them I could find by year and month.
:::In terms of {{tq|a larger effort of very left-wing political advocacy}}, I must note that only one of my articles, ] has been informed by me being a leftist, and is hardly non neutral, merely a straightforward description of an economic theory and it's reception. Even then, one could argue that is more informed by me being a ] fan. The rest are informed by the fact I am a trans person, and there are numerous people and organizations who's sole purpose is the restriction of trans peoples' rights, who I find it prudent to objectively document, as the facts speak for themselves. If I was a right-wing trans person, I could still write the same articles, as my interest in doing so is the fact I am trans, not a leftist. ] (]) 02:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::::I can see the legitimate concerns here. That same sort of bias is clear in other pages recently created by TheTransarchist. While they might try to argue their intent was to create an IMPARTIAL article, their social media page (is it safe to assume that is their page?) would suggest otherwise. ] (]) 11:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::You can't see any "legitimate concerns" and you know it, otherwise you'd legitimately point them out. I responded to what you filed at the , and it's touching how glaringly obvious it is you decided to complain without bothering to read the history or talk page, where I explicitly object to the content you are trying to lay the blame on me for... Are you ready to respond with wikipolicy (instead of your opinion) to the question of whether the sources count as reliable? Or are you going to continue tangents and thinly veiled personal attacks on my editing? ] (]) 13:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::Please see RS and CON. Those are the relevant pages. The BLPN discussion is not related to this source or this article. ] (]) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::::That's rich. I have brought up ] repeatedly, discussing the requirements to consider a source reliable while providing evidence my sources meet those. You have only gone off on tangents and expressed your own opinion and '''not once''' mentioned actual policy. Per ]: {{tq|In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.}} Considering the quality of your arguments, they seem to be entirely predicated on "I don't like it" rather than any serious discussion of policy.
:::::::You are the one who called my editing impartial, then said my other articles were biased and brought that up to attack me as an editor here (of course, as I repeat, not actually bothering to respond to any of my arguments), then started a BLPN discussion to try and prove it - but suddenly pointing out the claim is false and those allegations of bias are spurious is {{tq|not related}}? Something tells me your next reply will once again fail to respond to any of my points raised or cite any relevant policy and just attack me or go off on a tangent again... ] (]) 15:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::::With respect, each of the three sources that got brought to RSN have ''truly significant issues'' with their suitability for citing contentious facts. ] asks us to fairly and proportionately represent the views {{tq|published by reliable sources}}, so including unreliable sources here and giving them undue weight would cause the article's content to have a fairly substantial ] issue. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 22:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
:This is completely inappropriate, and nothing more than a personal attack on @]. Even if there was something wrong with her edits, this is not the way to discuss it. This whole section should get deleted as off-topic. ] (]) 19:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


:Ok, so first to explain my reverts. I reverted {{diff2|1165058813|this edit}} because it removed a large amount of reliably sourced content on the organisation. I reverted {{diff2|1165059764|this edit}} because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and article cited is very clearly not an opinion article.
{{outdent}} I concur with Loksmythe's assessment above that this article needs a fundamental re-write or deletion/recreation. {{u|Drmies}} has just added more tags to this article, which reflect the pervasive problems with it. ] (]) 01:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
:Finally I {{diff2|1165421330|restored}} the version prior to these edits, minus the protection template for several reasons. Like the first edit, we don't need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. Like the second edit, this removed reliably sourced content. This edit also added two paragraphs that were cited only to FAIR's website and were overly promotional in nature. ] (]) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
:So the starting point for any changes to the article is always going to be, what do ] ] say about the organisation? It's been a few months since I looked at the sources for this organisation in any detail, but my recollection is that the article does fairly well represent these sources, though goes perhaps into too much detail in places instead of just summarising.
:If there is content, be it sentences, paragraphs, or sections, that are not representative of what the sources state about this organisation, I think a good starting point will be to identify that content alongside the reliable sources that dispute what we and the sources we cite currently state, as well as a brief description of what is wrong with problematic content. Simply stating that the organisation itself disputes what independent reliable sources have said about them however is not enough. You need to demonstrate that what we're saying in the article is not representative of what reliable sources say about the organisation.
:I would however like to remind all that ] itself doesn't mean that content on this organisation must be free of any criticisms. As ] we describe disputes, but do not engage in them. If the balance of reliable sources about this organisation are critical or describe it in negative terms, then our own article will by necessity also be critical and use similar terminology. To do otherwise would be ], and give ]. ] (]) 03:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::The National Post describes FAIR as "an advocacy organization dedicated to civil rights and anti-discrimination" .
::This describes how the organization has tried to pave a lane as a 'anti-woke' but moderate organization, and describes the political polarization (or 'tribalism') that has made that non-partisan mission difficult to maintain.
:: has described FAIR as "a free-speech advocacy organization focused on the culture war over what some refer to as 'wokeness'".
:: called it "a New York-based special interest group".
:: (currently cited), says FAIR "launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics."
::The Emory Wheel, an "", "a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights by finding common ground among people on both sides of an issue", while also discussing opposition to it by students who allege FAIR "is transphobic and against critical race theory (CRT)."
::----
::The current header paints the group in a tilted light. How do we go about making it more representative of a variety of reliable independent sources, and more accurate? As it stands, saying FAIR "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls ] (CRT)" is misleading if not incorrect. ] (]) 03:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
::"I reverted because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and article cited is very clearly not an opinion article."
::Would it be more accurate and precise to do so regardless? We may not need to write in a more precise way, but surely it would be better if we did?
::On the other hand, the nuance of the paragraph being discussed is rather gutted by inserting at the very end that The Washington Post (as credible and respected as the organization is) has called FAIR conservative. The placement of the sentence at the end, as the last word, and the imprecision (even if technically allowed) seems to be a variation of an appeal to authority fallacy, if not a thought-terminating assertion. Do others find this a reasonable assessment? ] (]) 03:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:::@] @] Thoughts? ] (]) 23:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::What you're advocating for here is ], something we have guidance for. There are a few circumstances where we need it, particularly when a source is marginally reliable, if the source is an ], or if we're including content that diverges from the ] on a given topic. None of those are indicated here, and the content we've been discussing ''is'' the mainstream view about FAIR.
::::There is also a risk that when we use in-text attribution, that we can inadvertently introduce ], as by attributing it to a single publication or author in a publication, we are drawing a small degree of scepticism on what the source is saying. ] (]) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::@] @] @]. I cited a wide range of reliable publications, left, centre to right, who characterize FAIR differently from what the current opening does. Citing from two obscure left publications, and an article in the WaPo (which I would call an op-ed, but I'm assuming there is no room for nuance there since the publication does not explicitly label it as Opinion), is not representative of the mainstream view. The Guardian (left publication) classifies it as "anti-woke", as does The New Yorker (lean-left). That is not counting publishers closer to centre or right. Although in my personal opinion, anti-woke is probably neutral enough, and closer to representative of a 'mainstream view' - if there is one. ] (]) 06:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::We are getting unfamiliar editors undoing edits of the opener. Until we reach a consensus, the opener ought to be reduced to the section that is not disputed w NPOV. ] (]) 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The version that you have restored multiple times is ], and is wholly ]. Please self-revert to the long-standing consensus version. ] (]) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::See the above list of sources I worked to provide, from across the spectrum.
::::::::From my understanding of the Talk page, the long-standing version was not consensus, but rather people gave up trying to create NPOV due to a adamant and uncompromising small group (or maybe even 1-2) editors. ] (]) 04:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::e.g., @], @], @Loksmythe, @AnimalParty!, @BonaparteIII.
:::::::::As JWeiss mentioned: "...the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. ..."
:::::::::we should try a stab at coming up with a consensus version. ] (]) 04:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Please work here and get consensus first, if you're not blocked or banned for what you've done so far. --] (]) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's what we have been trying to do, but with little to no response over long periods of time.
:::::::::::As JWeiss stated, the longstanding version was '''not''' consensus but sort of grandfathered in, and then became too big a beast to change without a fight every step of the way. As I've mentioned above, anti-woke is a good starting point for describing the org, as it has been called that from across the spectrum in the sources who have published on FAIR. ] (]) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hipal, go easy with the threats to AnExtraEditor, please. The existing lead still has major problems, which AnExtraEditor is attempting to remedy. First, the lead cites a non-reliable source (Matthew McCreadie in ''Passage'') and employs weasel words ("that it calls"). That being said, the lead should make reference to "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives" in some way. ] (]) 04:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::}}Whitewashing the article is not appropriate, and was disruptive. Removing context so the only substantive information in the lead was what the foundation calls itself is unacceptably promotional. ]. This is a long-standing policy, so ] among ideologically sympathetic editors cannot over-ride this.


"Anti-woke" is meaningless. Those sources put "woke" in ] for a reason. "Woke" is so broad and so empty it tells readers nothing but allows sympathetic readers to fill-in the gaps with their own assumptions. This is absolutely not what we want readers to do, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we called it "anti-woke" we would have to, at bare minimum, explain to readers what that actually means, which is both impossible and also far, far out of scope for this article. ] (]) 04:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:I concur as well.
:Just to note some more. In here:
:''Critics have likened their approach to an ] mentality, which was a response to the ] movement that sought to delegitimize the notion that ] have been systematically discriminated against in the United States.<ref name="Salhotra">{{Cite news |last=Salhotra |first=Pooja |date=2021-07-13 |title=Critical race theory debate hits New York City public schools |language=en |work=Chalkbeat |url=https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2021/7/13/22575832/critical-race-theory-nyc-public-schools |access-date=2023-01-31}}</ref>''
:"sought to delegitimize the notion that ] have been systematically discriminated against in the United States" is actually a direct quote from the Chalkbeat, and yet it is put in Misplaced Pages's own voice. This either needs to be attributed as a quote, or lost. I recommend losing it.
:In:
:''According to experts and educators interviewed by Lancaster Online, what FAIR calls CRT is not CRT, but a catch-all term for anything race-related. CRT is a legal study of the ways in which race has been created, defined, and embedded into law throughout American history that is not taught outside of graduate and law school.<ref name="Salhotra" /><ref name="Geli">{{Cite news |last=Geli |first=Alex |date=October 3, 2021 |title=Are Lancaster County schools 'indoctrinating' children with critical race theory? Educators, experts say no |language=en |work=Lancaster Online |url=https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/are-lancaster-county-schools-indoctrinating-children-with-critical-race-theory-educators-experts-say-no/article_9fb7b1c2-22ec-11ec-bcd2-9359e05780fa.html |access-date=2023-01-31}}</ref>''
:This is actually a hotly-debated issue, and the above gives undue weight to Lancaster Online. See here for several RS sources that dispute this claim as currently stated:
:https://reason.com/2022/01/31/critical-race-theory-taught-in-classroom-california/
:https://www.uclalawreview.org/yes-critical-race-theory-should-be-taught-in-your-school-undoing-racism-in-k-12-schooling-and-classrooms-through-crt/
:Either the Lancaster Online claim should be recommended, or it should be kept but the counter-argument as presented in the Reason source should also be given.
:The page continues to have many other major issues. I am in favor of a full re-write, or perhaps we can slowly get consensus on (I hope, pretty clear-cut) things like the above piece by piece. ] (]) 18:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 18:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::Yeah, I think a new article ] would solve that. There's certainly enough academic and even popular media pointing out the differences between the legal theory and the conspiracy theory. ] (]) 18:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Very much agreed, some starting material is in ] and ]. Relatedly, it's interesting how Rufo's outsized involvement in pushing the CRT panic, which has been commented on by numerous reliable sources in regards to FAIR, has been removed from the article... ] (]) 18:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::::Friends, it is not a conspiracy theory, please see the two RS's I cited above. ] (]) 19:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::Removing criticism of them is blatant whitewashing, but I can support putting that in a quote.
::The Lancaster Online interviewed uninvolved experts for their opinion - you feeling the need to counter it with articles that never mentioned FAIR is blatant ].
::Additionally, since this user has made only 16 edits, most of which are small grammar fixes but two of which, their only talk page comments, are disproportionately lengthy comments here (the first of which was left on the same day as the account was created after making only two mainspace grammar fixes), they should probably be tagged as an SPA. ] (]) 18:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:::I am not an "SPA". This page had more issues than the others that I was reading after I decided to make an account, sorry. ] (]) 19:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::Re: {{tq|sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the United States}} - I get that we have to paraphrase to avoid COPYVIO, but I am not aware of any RS that characterize the objectives of "All lives matter" that conflict with this. ] (]) 19:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Agreed. ] (]) 19:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::::The talk of "conspiracy theory" here is absurd. There's a difference between a conspiracy theory and some people potentially misusing a nebulous, abstract term like ] when perhaps a similar, related term might be more apt. It's a veritable fact that under the banner of ], race essentialism, racial segregation, and notions like the idea that valuing precision, objective truth, and the scientific method are racist tools of "whiteness" have popped up all over the academic landscape in the US and other western nations, particularly in the last decades with acceleration after the summer of 2020. Left-wing advocacy and far-left advocacy exists, just as right-wing and far-right advocacy exists. It's not a "conspiracy theory" to acknowledge their existence. ] (]) 22:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


:Grayfell, as I explained above, the article began as an attack piece, and we've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. This recent article from ] should be helpful. https://archive.li/sbbLj. ] (]) 04:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think we need to lend undue weight to what the '']'' in particular says about CRT. While it may well be true that CRT "is not taught in any Lancaster County public school, nor is it mentioned in the Pennsylvania school curriculum", I think it's pretty established that "Critical Race Theory" both ''is'' a loose catchall that conservatives conflate with various anti-racism and social justice initiatives (largely due to Christopher Rufo)<ref>{{cite news |last1=Waxman |first1=Olivia B. |title=‘Critical Race Theory Is Simply the Latest Bogeyman.’ Inside the Fight Over What Kids Learn About America’s History |url=https://time.com/magazine/us/6075407/july-5th-2021-vol-198-no-1-u-s/ |work=] |date=July 5, 2021 |quote=It has also galvanized those who worry applying that lens will teach children to hate America or divide the nation by emphasizing our differences. This viewpoint has come to the fore amid a surge of controversy over critical race theory (CRT), a decades-old academic framework that scholars use to interrogate how legal systems—as well as other elements of society—perpetuate racism and exclusion. Opponents of CRT now invoke it as a catchall term for any discussion of systemic racism.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=McCausland |first1=Phil |title=The teaching of critical race theory isn't happening in classrooms, teachers say |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teaching-critical-race-theory-isn-t-happening-classrooms-teachers-say-n1272945 |work=] |date=July 1, 2021 |language=en |quote=Critical race theory is an academic study at the undergraduate and graduate level that aims to examine the role of racism in the modern era and the ways it has become woven into the social fabric. Academics in the field argue the U.S. has institutionalized a racial caste system. Increasingly it has also become an amorphous, catch-all term used by the conservative movement as fodder for political debate.}}</ref> and ''is also'' being taught in some primary schools, or at least influencing school curricula as a framework, regardless of whether it's specifically called CRT.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaplan |first1=Leslie S. |last2=Owings |first2=William A. |title=Countering the Furor Around Critical Race Theory |journal=] |date=September 2021 |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=200–218 |doi=10.1177/01926365211045457 |quote=So, while it is accurate to say that American high schools do not teach CRT, the initiative to include diverse voices and stories in retelling American history in a more complete, accurate, and balanced way reflects the many of the same societal influences.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Severns |first1=Maggie |title=‘People are scared’: Democrats lose ground on school equity plans |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/democrats-school-critical-race-theory-500729 |website=] |language=en |date=July 26, 2021 |quote=And she’s alarmed over her state’s new model ethnic studies curriculum, which cites critical race theory as a “key theoretical framework and pedagogy.”}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Anderson |first1=Bryan |title=Critical race theory is a flashpoint for conservatives, but what does it mean? |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/so-much-buzz-but-what-is-critical-race-theory |work=] |date=2 November 2021 |language=en-us |quote=There is little to no evidence that critical race theory itself is being taught to K-12 public school students, though some ideas central to it, such as lingering consequences of slavery, have been. In Greenwich, Connecticut, some middle school students were given a “white bias” survey that parents viewed as being part of the theory.}}</ref> Whatever we do, we should not imply that critics of "CRT" are totally off-base even if they use the term imprecisely. ] (]) 22:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


::let's look at that article, thanks for linking again. I linked a bunch of other reliable and varying sources in my earlier message.
::I only suggested anti-woke because a wide variety of sources use that description. Your right on the ambiguity of it, so perhaps political correctness would be more specific. Nonetheless, the main thrust of FAIR seems to me to be based instead on race - such as race-based affirmative action or otherwise selecting between people based on their immutable characteristics.
::The only thing I would add is that there was not consensus on the long-standing version of the article, and to bring that up is necessary, not a disruptive attempt to edit by ideologically sympathetic editors. ] (]) 04:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:::A neutral description of this foundation from independent sources is not an "an attack piece". The foundation would, like any foundation, chose to present its goals in the most flattering way possible. In this case that means bland PR and euphemistic waffle about "wokeness". As I already mentioned, Misplaced Pages will still summarize ], because this is an encyclopedia, not a corporate wire service.
:::"]" is ''slightly'' less ambiguous than "woke", but not by enough. The two terms share similar histories of being first used tongue-in-cheek by leftists, growing in popularity, and then being co-opted by the right to be a buzzword to represent socially progressive ideas that they dislike. Like "woke", "political correctness" doesn't mean very much any more, and use of the term would just reaffirm the reader's prior assumptions without providing any falsifiable information.
:::Saying the main thrust of FAIR is race is valid, but incomplete. What, exactly, are ] saying about FAIR and race? This is specifically about the ], which falls under ] for several reasons. As an encyclopedia, we take this kind of misinformation seriously, and topics like this are not the place for bland PR or vague euphemisms. ] (]) 06:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Grayfell, when I said this article began as an "attack piece", I'm talking about this version and those close to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism&oldid=1136700156. Do you think the article in that state was a neutral description of the organization? ] (]) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::The lead sentence does have issues. Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far. This is a reasonable distinction to make even if it's not as easy to parse out. Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting. The NYT specifically warned about this . Also, we need to be careful when throwing out claims of whitewashing. In an ideal world we would be able to find a source that very clearly draws lines between what the subject does/doesn't do. Just because a generally reliable source uses a broad brush description doesn't mean we shouldn't narrow it to the parts that are actually supported. As an example, a group that specifically focuses on trans-issues might be broadly labeled "pro-LGBTQ" but would more accurately be described as "pro-trans". The same might be true of a group that is "pro-farmer" but specifically focuses on small scale specialty farms rather than large farms. If the sources make the focus clear and the subject's claimed focus agrees then we should be more specific in our description. ] (]) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::thank you @] for putting into words a good bit of what I have otherwise struggled to convey.
::::::''"Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far."''
::::::Correct. There is nuance here that is currently missed, and thus leads to a misleading (if not false) characterization. This is why I removed it.
::::::"Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting. The NYT specifically warned about this </nowiki>]"
::::::If I'm understanding your point correctly, this was what I was trying to explain earlier, although @] answered that because the WaPo article was not labeled opinion, we can't distinguish between normative claims and objective claims within the article - like calling the group conservative (a normative claim). ] (]) 04:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Looking at it again now (I think some of the previous unreliable/biased citations that I mentioned were removed? - e.g., 's article in The Maple, the article from Passage), I'm struggling to see where any of the cited articles support the sentence:
:::::::<big>"... that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls ] (CRT)"</big>
:::::::'''Can someone explain where that comes from in the articles?''' I'm not sure what we do on Misplaced Pages, but including citations without explicit reference to the content you took from them is improper citation, or to 'pad a paper' as professors say.
::::::://///
:::::::'''The Washington Post article''' (left lean - but more specifically this author/article) mentions FAIR briefly, and talks about a local chapter's actions (can this be attributed to the main org. itself?).
:::::::'''The Lancaster Online article''' (reliable?) also briefly mentioned the org in a piece on a larger issue. It uses a (guilt by association?) fallacy, writing: "(FAIR) describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, ''but prominent conservatives sit on its board of advisers".'' Regardless of the fallacy/rhetorical device, it might be the case that the board leans towards conservatives (not ignoring classical liberals, or centrists, or liked-minded folks on the left), I'm not sure - this would just make sense given it is opposed to mainstream policy choices supported by the left.
:::::::'''Chalkbeat article (left lean)'''- provides slightly more detail, writing: "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT and broadly advocates for a “human first” mindset — something critics liken to an “All Lives Matter” mentality." So this is the first instance I see of direct support for something that would convey that FAIR has criticized CRT - not the weasel worded "<big>antiracism initiatives that it calls ] (CRT)".</big>
:::::::'''Valley News (left)''' Talks more in depth on FAIR. They write "... but its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals, and much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." Although backers is vague, the assertion that all are conservative is false if you take it to mean the organizations' leadership, and board of advisors. That said, we again have support for something in our article that states they have criticized or have content that fights against CRT.
:::::::'''Guardian (left):''' "(Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics." Okay, so support for the anti-woke characterization. It continues, "The group is so far encouraging opposition to the McConnell opposed and has highlighted a legal challenge to a debt relief program for Black farmers as a “”. So, two specific policies they are against here, which seem to centre around CRT and a lack of "countervailing perspectives" for the former, and race-based affirmative action for the latter.
:::::::Continued, "Those who take the Fair “” can also join a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.” - again, CRT support.
:::::::I'll end by mentioning - there is nothing wrong with citing publications that lean left, but you see the issue here with lack of balance.
:::::::Anywho, let's fix the opener here now that we know what is supported from these articles, and what isn't. It would also be helpful to add more balance by adding reliable independent sources from the centre or right. ] (]) 05:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Per ], the purpose of the lead is to summarize the body; and the sentence you object to broadly summarizes the "opposition to critical race theory" section. It's also not really useful to indicate your own personal objections to the conclusions of sources; they say what they say. Misplaced Pages is based on the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage, and the ''bulk'' of the sources, as reflected in the body, are accurately summarized by the current lead. --] (]) 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::the body, if I am not mistaken, is still largely built from the initial article on FAIR, which was far from balanced (e.g., see @]'s comments). I.E., '''A. "the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage" and B. "the ''bulk'' of the sources, as reflected in the body" are unfortunately not the same thing.''' That is part of the problem.
:::::::::If you disagree with my analysis, you are free (actually, encouraged) to point out where specifically it is wrong. The above concerns from multiple editors are valid and explained with support. Very specific instances of improper citation are not just 'personal objections'. I take the point however that logical fallacies in cited articles may not be a concern of ours - I'm new here and not familiar with all the policy.
:::::::::Moving forward, see the list of sources I cited above, including the Guardian article, New Yorker, The Intercept, The Chicago Tribune, etc. for a more balanced and mainstream coverage of FAIR than what is currently cited in the opener. ] (]) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You seem to be confusing what you personally feel is "balanced" with what ] requires. Seeking out sources that better fit your personal opinions is cherry-picking, the very opposite of what NPOV requires. --] (]) 16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I concur with AnExtraEditor about these sources. ] (]) 17:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::@], the comments raised by @], or those I’ve raised - can you please be specific in where these sources are unreliable or unbalanced or otherwise?
:::::::::::I’ve spent a good deal of time being very specific in where the current opener and citations seem to need improvement. Dismissing these efforts as cherry picking on its face doesn’t seem constructive and keeps bringing us back to accusations instead of progress on the article. I’m trying my best to access contributions with respect here, but I don’t feel it’s being reciprocated in this case. Let’s work together and be very specific in errors or corrections that others raise. ] (]) 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Categorizing sources as "left" or "left-leaning" or similar is a dead-end. In the past, editors have tried to discredit sources by categorizing them as ideologically opposed to the topics they cover, but this obviously cannot work. We are looking for sources which are willing to oppose the thing they are covering. A willingness to look critically at a topic is part of what makes sources reliable and independent. To putit another way: We are looking for ], and if those sources happen to be "left-leaning" according to you (or commonly used but unreliable blogs like ] or ] or similar) than so be it. Either they are reliable in this context or they are not. We don't look for right-wing sources to 'balance out' left-wing ones, because that would be ].
::::::::::::Likewise, it's not up to you as an editor to decide whether or not the organization's leadership is conservative or right-wing or whatever else, it is up to sources. If sources consistently mention that this organization is right-wing (which is not an extraordinary claim) our task is to figure out how to summarize them neutrally, not to disprove them individually via ]. ] (]) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023 ==
{{reflist-talk}}


{{edit semi-protected|Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism|answered=yes}}
==Notice of reliable sources noticeboard discussion==
"eough" = "enough" ] (]) 18:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ].<!--Template:RSN-notice--> Thank you.
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> interestingly, looks like the news source we copy/pasted this quote from made this error and we carried it on. ] (]) 18:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


== Edit Request: Reverting recent vandalism and OR ==
] (]) 18:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist


Could somebody revert the recent IP vandalism to the article?
== Undoing the whitewashing and advertification ==
* Here they updated the lead to say FAIR opposed {{tq|] initiatives that it calls "]"}} to {{tq|] initiatives rooted in ] (CRT).}} This has already been discussed on the talk page, the RS are very clear that FAIR calls things CRT (and is often wrong), we don't have RS saying the initiatives they oppose are rooted in CRT.
* In the same edit, they added {{tq| It instead favors rooting them in ] and provides such programming along those lines such as its own ethnic-studies curriculum based on liberal ideals instead of CRT.}} to the lead, before adding a reference in the next edit to
:* The source does not actually support this, the closest thing it says is {{tq|Under Bartning’s direction, FAIR created its own ethnic-studies curriculum, which was free for teachers and school districts to adapt.}}. It uses the word liberal twice, neither time attributing it to FAIR.


In addition, @]'s edit here should be partially reverted (keeping the spelling fixes) per ], ], and ].
]. The lead just containing their mission statement serves to make this page seem like a blatant advert on so many levels. The lead should follow the body, and summarize how reliable sources describe them and their activities. Additionally, "Founding and advisors" has been advertified as well, with scare quotes around various words, a puffy description that fails to mention how numerous reliable sources have commented on the large conservative bent of their board, a weird and irrelevant tidbit about how Pinker voted Democrat, and no mention of Rufo's outsized role in pushing the CRT panic. Not to mention the removal of ]. Links occasionally included as well.
* It changes {{tq|In May 2023, FAIR sponsored a letter<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fairforall.org/open-letters/archives-of-sexual-behavior/ |title= Open Letter in Support of Dr. Kenneth Zucker and the Need to Promote Robust Scientific Debate |date=May 5, 2023 |publisher=Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism |access-date=April 2, 2024 }}</ref> to ] demanding they refuse to retract a methodologically flawed paper}} to {{tq|... demanding they refuse to retract an '''allegedly''' methodologically flawed paper}} (emphasis added)
:* To be clear, the paper in question has a retraction notice explicitly saying {{tq|The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent. The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.}}
* It also added the text {{tq|though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://unherd.com/newsroom/publisher-doubles-down-on-retracted-gender-paper/ |title=Publisher doubles down on retracted gender paper |last=Mondegreen |first=Eliza |date=June 12, 2023 |access-date=April 2, 2024 }}</ref>}} This is citing a piece in ] (a previous RSN discussion found it almost entirely undue opinion pieces at best, generally unreliable otherwise), which lauds the ] activist ] and cites the FRINGE group ]. The author's bio in the article links to her substack, where she lists her writing for other FRINGE groups like ] and contains dozens of articles of her misgendering and ranting about trans people. Of note, as noted in this article, FAIR has frequently worked with Genspect/SEGM and shares board members, they are hardly independent. An opinion piece citing ] groups to attack a scientific publisher and defend their members is not ]
] (]) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


:Please revert the vandalism/OR/undue additions discussed above. ] (]) 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Since I'm still here despite the best efforts of some, here's a list of how every source describes them and their activities. Bolding and italics added.
{{cot|List of FAIR's reception in reliable sources}}
* {{tq|The New York-based Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism has '''targeted critical race theory''', elevating California’s ethnic studies to a national debate over what it calls a new form of intolerance.}}
* {{tq|Meanwhile, groups like Educators for Excellence in Ethnic Studies, and, on a national level, the New York-based Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, are monitoring districts’ deliberations and '''fighting ''what they consider'' harmful applications of critical race theory in the classroom.}}
* {{tq|'''The push for educators to address structural racism has prompted its own outcry, turning critical race theory and new histories such as The New York Times’ “1619 Project” into fodder for the nation’s ongoing culture wars.''' At Smith College, for example, a former staff member has attracted a passionate YouTube following for criticizing the school’s insistence that employees undergo anti-bias training that centers on white privilege. Several academics recently formed the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism to combat '''what they see''' as an overly cynical emphasis on race, gender and sexual orientation, rather than “common humanity.”}}
* {{tq|A host of new organizations has also sprung up to '''spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics'''. ... Those who take the Fair “pledge” can also join '''a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools''' and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.” }}
* {{tq|Fishbein connected the mother with Schoolhouse Rights’ Jonathan O’Brien, an attorney who also saw her appearance on Carlson’s show. '''Schoolhouse Rights is a project of extreme anti-LGBTQ group International Organization for the Family and says that it coordinated work on the case with extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom and ''the deceptively named'' Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR).''' FAIR boasts advisers such as anti-trans writer Abigail Shrier and '''Christopher Rufo, an anti-civil rights activist who directs the Manhattan Institute's initiative on critical race theory.'''}}
* {{tq|The dispute between Dwight-Englewood and Stangel-Plowe was picked up by FAIR,''' which says it is''' a nonpartisan organization that launched in March and is working toward obtaining 501c3 status. A spokesperson for FAIR said the organization's mission is to promote a "pro-human" message. '''Of the cases profiled on FAIR's website, almost all involved battling Critical Race Theory (CRT),''' an academic movement coined by lawyer and civil rights activist Kimberlé Crenshaw. Its core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct, according to the American Bar Association. '''The FAIR spokesperson denied''' that their organization was founded to combat CRT, saying it seeks to advocate for "one human race."}}
* {{tq|The resignation letter was published by the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, an organization founded by private school parent Bion Bartning earlier this year, '''whose mission is to oppose critical race theory teachings in schools''' and promote what it calls a "pro-human" agenda.}}
* {{tq|In March, New York private school parent Bion Bartning launched a national nonprofit organization, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, or FAIR, after he learned that Riverdale Country School, where his children attended, had developed antiracist initiatives. Upset by the school’s new “orthodoxy” about race, Bartning pulled his children out of the school. '''FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT and broadly advocates for a “human first” mindset — something critics liken to an “All Lives Matter” mentality.''' (All Lives Matter was a response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It sought to delegitimize the notion that Black people have been systematically discriminated against in the U.S.) }} (Note, the article says in it's own voice that CRT is not taught in NYC schools)
* {{tq|'''The pushback against antiracism education has taken on aspects of an ideological uprising'''. In Boston, a new group, Parents United, has entered the fight with New England’s private schools. Mr. Bartning, the former Riverdale parent, established the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, with a large board that includes the academic and writer Steven Pinker; the human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali; the former Fox newscaster Megyn Kelly; and Mr. Loury, the economist at Brown. Mr. Rossi works with this foundation.}}
* {{tq|But what they claim is CRT is not actually CRT, according to educators and experts interviewed by LNP | LancasterOnline over the last three months. And it is not taught in any Lancaster County public school, nor is it mentioned in the Pennsylvania school curriculum, at least not at the K-12 level, educators and state officials said. While school board members and administrators have attempted to quell the anger associated with CRT by publicly asserting it is not part of their curriculum, that hasn’t stopped parents – fueled by conservative media, politicians and influential far-right groups with large social media presences – from accusing schools of adopting CRT. ... Conservative activist Christopher Rufo, Wilson said, initially brought this distorted definition of CRT to political discussion. In the height of the Black Lives Matter movement and anger over George Floyd’s murder, Rufo was repeatedly featured on Fox News and its flagship program “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” His message: CRT and the awareness of systemic racism in society are threats to the nation. ...In August, was featured in a CRT video for the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. The foundation '''describes itself''' as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, '''but prominent conservatives sit on its board of advisers – people like political commentator Megyn Kelly and Rufo.''' CRT, Hanna said in the video, is based on the supposition that the nation was founded on white supremacy and, thus, racism is unavoidable. He suggested schools are slipping CRT into the curriculum under pseudonyms like “action civics,” “race consciousness,” “cultural competency” and “equity.”}} (This article also notes the experts saying what FAIR calls CRT is not actually CRT)
* {{tq|At present UATX certainly looks as legit as PragerU or Trump University. Indeed, the faculty showcases many familiar faces from the Intellectual Dark Web and '''the horribly misnamed''' Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.}}
* {{tq|Local papers across Vermont, for example, have published commentaries from parents that copy, word-for-word, a form letter distributed by '''the innocuously named''' Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. The group '''bills itself''' as a “nonpartisan” organization dedicated to “promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity,” b'''ut its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals, and much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory.'''}} (This source also disputes the categorization of school programs as CRT)
* {{tq|'''The word “equity” has often been associated with critical race theory, which has been a source of controversy and impassioned debate in school boards across the country despite the fact that it is rarely taught below the graduate-school level.''' Several people have spoken vehemently against the term in recent board meetings. ... At the Dec. 8 meeting, a statement from the El Paso/Teller County chapter of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism got an enthusiastic response from many in attendance. “We urge the board to thoroughly review and revise the Equity Policy adopted on May 27, 2020 to eliminate race-essentialist assumptions about systemic racism and group outcomes,” foundation member Judith Sears said. “Revise the equity policy to reflect the need for fair and equal treatment of all individuals, regardless of group identities.” }}
* {{tq|Morley, Dion and Parent are all listed as local administrators of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), a national organization that seeks to '''combat ''what it sees as'' divisive lessons on racial justice across the country.'''}}
* {{tq|What's FAIR? FAIR — the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism — is one of a handful of national organizations that's popped up recently to fight school equity initiatives. On its website, which displays quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass, FAIR '''bills itself''' as "a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans." '''That description only tells part of the story'''. The organization was founded less than a year ago by New York parent Bion Bartning, who pulled his children from the upscale Riverdale Country School in the Bronx because he objected to the school's anti-racism curriculum. '''FAIR has been promoted by staunch conservatives such as Glenn Beck and counts former Fox News host Megyn Kelly and conservative columnist Bari Weiss as advisory board members. Visitors to FAIR's website can report schools and organizations for teaching about diversity, equity and inclusion in divisive ways.''' A recent review of Cabot-based Building Fearless Futures, a racial and social justice nonprofit that works with Vermont schools, asserts that its consultants "are hired by school districts in Northern VT ... to indoctrinate and corrupt the minds of our children." Shelburne Farms is also called out — anonymously — on the site for its "anti-racist, equity driven curricula." }}
* {{tq|The group FAIR frequently uses Martin Luther King’s quotes about “colorblindedness”: Its website banner image features the civil rights leader, and its diverse board of advisors includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born feminist author), Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News host), Steven Pinker (a widely published Harvard cognitive psychologist), and John McWhorter (a Columbia University linguistics professor and New York Times columnist).}}
* {{tq| '''CRT is not taught in D11,''' but the district’s equity policy had drawn a lot of opposition from local members of FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism), a nationwide organization The Guardian describes as having “sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide.”}}
* {{tq|the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, '''an advocacy group formed last year to oppose “woke ideology.”'''}}
* {{tq|The lawsuit is being backed by an organization called the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism,''' which says it is''' concerned about a “cynical and intolerant orthodoxy” that “pits us against one another, and diminishes what it means to be human.” The organization, founded by Bion Bartning, '''has filed other lawsuits challenging what it says are forms of discriminatory overreach by organizations trying to implement diversity programs'''}}
* {{tq|'''A civil rights group''' is pushing back against a Florida sheriff who arrested a 10-year-old boy for allegedly threatening to shoot up an elementary school just days after the deadly mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. ... The boy's family may pursue legal action against Marceno for what they say was heavy-handed treatment for political gain, with help from the group Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR).}}
* {{tq|Among the attendees at these sessions were members of a local chapter of '''a conservative group called Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. They were there not to address the findings but to criticize the equity push as another form of racism.''' The entire enterprise, members argued, was a damaging form of “race essentialism,” defining students by their skin color.}}
* {{tq|The organization, founded in early 2021 by Bion Bartning, '''claims on its website to be nonpartisan and a nonprofit.''' ... '''The group’s funding sources are not clear.''' It utilizes United Charitable, an organization that works with wealth advisors and donors to minimize tax liability on charitable endeavors. '''The organization strongly pushes back''' against those who would call it partisan. }}
* {{tq|The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, a free-speech advocacy organization '''focused on the culture war over what some refer to as "wokeness"'''}}
* {{tq|The Foundation Against Intolerance And Racism (FAIR) was founded in the U.S. by a group of high-profile authors, journalists and media figures, including Steven Pinker, Bari Weiss, John McWhorter, Abigail Shrier, and '''Christopher Rufo, the man who has been credited with single-handedly inventing the CRT panic.''' One of '''the organization’s stated goals''' is to advance “civil rights and liberties for all Americans.” '''In reality, however, the organization spends its time effectively defending the “right” of students to misgender schoolmates, attempting to bar teaching materials that mention white privilege from being used in school in at least one case and supporting lawsuits over sex-ed curricula. '''}}
* {{tq|While Ontario election law limits how much groups can work together across different municipalities, '''several organizations have emerged recently with the explicit aim of electing anti-trans candidates. Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been working alongside like the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) and Parents As First Educators (PAFE) to offer advice or resources to “anti-woke” candidates.''' Both Blueprint for Canada and Vote Against Woke have been forced to take down their lists of recommended anti-LGBTQ2S+ candidates over potential violations of provincial election regulation. }}
*{{tq|Anderson recently participated in a debate entitled “A Pro-Human Approach to Adolescent Gender Dysphoria” for FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism. FAIR’s Board of Advisors includes blackface defender Megyn Kelly, opponent of “cancel culture” and intersectionality and fan of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web Bari Weiss, anti-woke psychologist Steven Pinker, Abigail Shrier herself, opponent of Critical Race Theory Christopher Rufo, and anti-“woke” conservative Andrew Sullivan.}}
* {{tq|a group of conservative, anti-LGBTQ, pro-charter school activist groups in Colorado that include the Independence Institute, FAIR , and FEC United. ... FAIR’s Board of Advisors consists of a host of disgraced academics and journalists, many of whom have been accused of racism, pushing race science, climate change denial, sexual assault, and homophobia transphobia. ... During a Nov. 15 Douglas County Board of Education meeting, Windju warned that GSA clubs in schools were being used as a front for “racial” activism. “Parents in the community should be made aware of the way some GSA clubs are being used by adult activists, using the goodwill surrounding the LGBTQ social movement, using the language of LGBTQ inclusion as cover to bring social and racial activism into school districts in Colorado to indoctrinate youth into social and racial activism,” she said. “The national network organization behind GSA clubs is the GSA network, which operates with a multi-million dollar budget. It isn’t subtle about its political motives or its racial activism.” Windju’s public comment was lifted almost verbatim from an op-ed by '''Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, the conservative think tank founded by Ronald Reagan’s CIA Director, William Casey, and a former member of FAIR’s Board of Advisors. Rufo was one of leading voices behind the manufactured outrage over critical race theory, which led to conservative victories in school board elections last year. ''' “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” tweeted Rufo last year. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’”}}
* {{tq|The event also featured a panel with Deborah Flora, Erec Smith with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, and Cain Young, founder of Task Force Freedom. The panelists lambasted critical race theory, teachers' unions and diversity, equity and inclusion programs, while encouraging parents to get involved. ... Young and Flora later railed against schools for supporting trans students and suggested schools were encouraging students to transition.}}
* {{tq|The elected officials were enjoying free lodging and meals at the resort while attending a private symposium, titled “Rights and Responsibilities: A Symposium for School Board Members,” hosted by UW-Madison’s Center for the Study of Liberal Democracy (CSLD) and the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). ... '''While framed as''' a simple civic engagement opportunity and chance for school board members to learn how to approach their position, '''the event showcased representatives of a growing movement to push boards in a conservative direction''' by advocating for “parental rights.” ... Since its founding, FAIR has filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court lawsuit concerning affirmative action — urging the Court to side with the Students for Fair Admissions and writing that consideration of skin color can result in stigma, division, and dehumanization of applicants. '''Local chapters have challenged curriculum on race and gender in public schools.''' }}
{{cob}}


::Please keep discussions in one thread. You should be able to edit the page yourself. Thank you! ] (] · ]) at 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
So for a proposed lead in accordance with ], ], and ], how's this?
:::Oh, it is in the same thread. Nevermind then. But, you don't need to add the "semi-edit request" because the page is not protected, so I've removed it for you. ] (] · ]) at 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::@], sorry if I used the wrong template, I'm unused to edit requests - I would fix it myself, but I'm under strict 0RR for this article so cannot do so. ] (]) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:@] thanks for dealing with that OR just now! Just wanted to get your thoughts on the issues above, I'd forgotten about them but was reminded when this popped back in my watchlist lol. ] (]) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)


::I've trimmed the Unherd bit. If nothing else, "...though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained" is unacceptably vague and loaded. ] (]) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|The '''Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR)''' is a New-York based conservative advocacy group that campaigns against what it calls "woke ideology". FAIR has campaigned against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and anti-racist initiatives, which they falsely characterize as "]" (CRT), an academic movement whose core tenet is that racism is a systemic social construct that is not taught below the graduate level. The organization also campaigns against policies which would prohibit the ] or ] of ] by their peers or faculty. The organization was founded in 2021 by Brion Bartning, after learning that his son's private school had developed anti-racist initiatives.}}
:::Thanks! Any thoughts on the first bit regarding pov/OR additions to the lead? ] (]) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Fixed these. As you said, neither source really stated that the group advocates for liberal ideals. And the uncritical use of the term CRT, when that can be used as a blanket term for any number of things, is something we should be careful not to put in wikivoice. ] (]) 23:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


:::::"that it calls" in the lead is weasel wordy. I was in involved in discussions about this last year, but I don't believe we ever had a resolution. If FAIR has misattributed something that is not CRT as being CRT, then some source should clearly explain that. Do we have such a source? The Chalkbeat source cited in the lead simply says "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT". The Valley News says "much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." None of the five sources cited in the lead suggest a misattribution of the term "CRT" by FAIR. ] (]) 02:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|], one of the largest figures in the ] and director of the ]'s initiative on CRT, was formerly on the advisory board. Other notable members include former ] host ], conservative columnist ], fellow of the ] Ian Rowe, venture capitalist ], author ], psychologist ], linguist ], economist ], and activists ] and ].}} ] (]) 21:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
::::::We are clearly attributing it to FAIR, so it would be more ] than weasel... but it's not even that. We are not casting doubt on this via word tricks, this is just a summary. The lead summarizes the body, and this is explained in detail in ]. Accepting FAIR's boutique definition of CRT would be a ] issue. They are opposing a specific version of CRT that is not similar to the mainstream definition of the term. To imply otherwise would be misleading. ] (]) 05:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The Lancaster Online piece seems to be the only source that addresses the issue of FAIR's interpretation of the term "CRT". Is there anything else there? ] (]) 05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Chalkbeat: {{tq|CRT has become a political flashpoint, dominating headlines and school board meetings ever since the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo claimed that CRT had infiltrated the federal government and public schools ... The education department maintains that CRT is not taught in the city’s public schools, but some parents disagree. ... Although CRT is not taught in NYC public schools, the city recently pledged multiple efforts to create a culturally responsive curriculum ... While Ansari learned more about CRT, she began to see that it was being used as a catchall term to define some of the work she had been doing for years to uplift marginalized voices. She saw criticisms of CRT as an attack on recent efforts to integrate anti-bias training and racial justice initiatives into education. }}
::::::Washington Post: {{tq|The conservatives had taken office after a campaign focused on race and allegations that critical race theory had invaded the local schools, the most diverse in El Paso County. ... “The number one question that people are asking me: ‘Is critical race theory in our classrooms?’ ” Thomas told the school board at its Aug. 4 work session. It’s not, he said. “When people are conflating equity with critical race theory, they’re grossly mistaken.” ... Critical race theory, an academic construct that looks at the consequences of systemic racism, is not taught in K-12 classrooms, though the underlying ideas are part of lessons and policies in many places. And the equity findings that Knox-Miller was about to present were based on the idea that there was in fact systemic racism in the district.}}
::::::The Guardian: {{tq|But alongside this reassessment, another American tradition re-emerged: a reactionary movement bent on reasserting a whitewashed American myth. These reactionary forces have taken aim at efforts to tell an honest version of American history and speak openly about racism by proposing laws in statehouses across the country that would ban the teaching of “critical race theory” ... While diversity training and the 1619 Project have been major targets, critical race theory has more recently become the watchword of the moral panic. Developed by Black legal scholars at Harvard in the 1980s, critical race theory is a mode of thinking that examines the ways in which racism was embedded into American law. ... But in the hands of the American right, critical race theory has morphed into an existential threat. ... A host of new organizations has also sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics. The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell ... For some of these groups, critical race theory is just one of many “liberal” ideas they don’t want their children to learn. ... For others, it seems possible that attacking critical race theory is just a smokescreen for a bog standard conservative agenda. ... Whatever their motives, today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic. ... Laats suspects that the right is using “critical race theory” as a euphemism. “You can’t go to a school board and say you want to ban the idea that Black Lives Matter.}}
::::::Valley News: {{tq|America’s school boards have once again become battlegrounds as a network of national groups stoke fears about “critical race theory,” a once-obscure academic theory turned by conservatives into a catch-all bogeyman signifying progressive school initiatives. ... “CRT is not a K-12 thing. It just isn’t,” said Darren Allen, a spokesperson for the Vermont-NEA, the state teachers union. “Critical race theory is not taught in K-12 schools,” echoed Maulucci, Scott’s press secretary. And indeed, critical race theory is an academic and legal framework dating back to the 1970s, whose debates have mostly played out in college seminars and academic journals. By and large, Vermont’s K-12 schools are not engaging with advanced graduate-level coursework. ... But like many of his peers, Castle also said “critical race theory” has been miscast by those who seek to combat it. The point, he said, is absolutely not to make white children feel guilt or shame. ... For Badams, the SAU 70 superintendent, the slippery way in which critical race theory has been defined by its opponents leaves schools with the impossible task of “disproving a negative.” ... The anti-critical race theory panic has been described by many education officials and critics on the left as an astroturfed movement, imported from well-funded right-wing organizations from outside.}}
::::::The sources cited in the lead all either 1) flat out say CRT isn't taught, 2) note many deny its taught, 3) call the anti-CRT movement a moral panic or 4) all of the above. ] (]) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, but none of these sources state that FAIR has misconstrued what CRT is, much less explain how in any substantive way. Only the Guardian passage specifically refers to FAIR. If "that it refers to" is relying on those passages from those sources, then that's an OR/SYNTH. ] (]) 18:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::wow this page got so much less neutral, somehow haha. yikes. ] (]) 20:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


<!--place new comments in this section above this template-->{{reflist-talk}}
:While the lead in current state less then ideal, I certainly object to this proposal. FAIR is not a conservative group. It's an alliance of conservatives, centrists, and liberals. And the part about CRT is loaded POV pushing that advances a word game to whitewash far-left ideological excesses in education and academia and attempt to delegitimize anyone who complains about it. ] (]) 22:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:51, 20 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOrganizations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEducation Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconNew York City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconCulture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconFoundation Against Intolerance and Racism is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that an image or photograph of Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

July 2023 edits

This is much more balanced than what is currently up. I removed it because it is incorrect, but someone reverted it, so I'm guessing one needs to pitch an alternative.

Regarding: "FAIR had often opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures." FAIR does not oppose DEI, see here for their institutional position: https://www.fairforall.org/understanding-the-issues/#idgroups

Full relevant passage:

"FAIR believes that diversity, equity, and inclusion are laudable goals for any institution, as they increase a sense of belonging and allow each individual to bring their personality, background, and perspectives to the table. FAIR uses the commonly understood meanings of these words: “Diversity” refers to the existence of unique individuals with different experiences. “Equity” refers to the quality of being fair and impartial. “Inclusion” refers to welcoming diverse people and viewpoints and making all people feel a sense of belonging, regardless of their immutable traits. FAIR recognizes and understands that others may use these terms differently, but we do not cede the values they are intended to represent. Institutions benefit from pro-human efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion because they allow individuals to see themselves and others as full human beings instead of representatives of identity groups." AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

that said, one can likely say that FAIR disagrees with the common interpretation and implementation of DEI initiatives. We should assume good faith that their stated values are their values, and then caveat that their definition of these values and their proper application can conflict with popular definitions and applications. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th - thanks for the feedback - new here. Would it not be more precise though to indicate who is saying it, as opposed to conflating that with the organization they wrote the article under?
The line between opinion article and non-opinion article is not always clear (and policies on that within media orgs have changed over time), and to give any group or person a particular political label is certainly not a fact - it's an opinion. So that said, would it be better to lean on the side of caution and allow more precision in this case?
I also think that putting the weight of the Washington Post behind the claim can be reasonably interpreted as an appeal to authority framing, given its good reputation. But that is a separate qualm. AnExtraEditor (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the lede would be improved with a stronger focus on FAIR's notability and removal of what they say about themselves. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/is-it-possible-to-be-both-moderate-and-anti-woke should be used in the article, and may help with notability and describing FAIR. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I just went through some of the above talk under 'POC page by avowedly POV editor', and am weary to continue as I don't see the concerns of a signifiant amount of editors being addressed (e.g., @Jweiss11, @Springee, @Loksmythe, AnimalParty!, BonaparteIII), and don't want my time and effort to go to waste. Should the page be deleted and rewritten or should the group go through (the probably unwanted) process of discussing NPOV issues one by one? It seemed these suggestions didn't come to an answer above, so just putting these questions out again.
On a similar note, what is standard procedure when an article is viewed as not adhering to NPOV by a reasonable amount of editors (and probably other rules? - I'm new to wiki editing), but there is no significant deviation from the disputed version that is published currently? My own two cents follows, take it or leave it (although I fear this article has become a battleground and not a dispassionate place to record information as impartially as possible, so I'm judging a sufficient number will leave it, and my contributions will be categorized under a 'side' - *cue a cynical sigh*). Those two cents: for Wiki to have any credibility, it ought to uphold NPOV wholeheartedly; no reasonable opposition should dispute NPOV of an article without action being taken. Of course this article is not going to make or break Wiki's credibility, I'm not arguing that.
There seems to be a middle ground, as mentioned above, that would move us closer to NPOV (without having to thrust upon others challenges to 'prove it' by finding more articles). To add to that line of thought, HXA is not a relatively widely discussed organization by big name sources across a wide range of perspectives. So that above challenge seems to be unfair. I think its reasonable to say (can we agree on this?) that the sample size of articles on HXA is lacking (or leaving much to be desired) in size, and in its spread / representation of diverging interpretations of HXA (that are of significance to us as 'encylopediers' / are not fringe).
But my inference from previous discussion it is unlikely we will get to that more neutral middle ground. What is the best process then? Do we have to go to mediation? Is that frowned upon for tabling (I don't want to insult people here, I read in the getting to know Wiki editing content that certain suggestions can be taken the wrong way).
Let's work together here. Cheers. - me :) AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Ooops, just wrote the wrong ORG (The Heterodox Academy ) instead of FAIR. My questions and concerns still apply - please ignore the error.
The only thing I would add is that FAIR might possibly be slightly more well known (from my estimation), and possibly (?) more likely to be interpreted as conservative by outsiders. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
AnExtraEditor, the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. You may want to take a stab as writing a new version. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, I've moved this off to its own section as it was difficult to find this in the long stale discussions above. I'll reply to some of this shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so first to explain my reverts. I reverted this edit because it removed a large amount of reliably sourced content on the organisation. I reverted this edit because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and the WaPo article cited is very clearly not an opinion article.
Finally I restored the version prior to these edits, minus the protection template for several reasons. Like the first edit, we don't need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. Like the second edit, this removed reliably sourced content. This edit also added two paragraphs that were cited only to FAIR's website and were overly promotional in nature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
So the starting point for any changes to the article is always going to be, what do independent reliable sources say about the organisation? It's been a few months since I looked at the sources for this organisation in any detail, but my recollection is that the article does fairly well represent these sources, though goes perhaps into too much detail in places instead of just summarising.
If there is content, be it sentences, paragraphs, or sections, that are not representative of what the sources state about this organisation, I think a good starting point will be to identify that content alongside the reliable sources that dispute what we and the sources we cite currently state, as well as a brief description of what is wrong with problematic content. Simply stating that the organisation itself disputes what independent reliable sources have said about them however is not enough. You need to demonstrate that what we're saying in the article is not representative of what reliable sources say about the organisation.
I would however like to remind all that NPOV itself doesn't mean that content on this organisation must be free of any criticisms. As the policy states we describe disputes, but do not engage in them. If the balance of reliable sources about this organisation are critical or describe it in negative terms, then our own article will by necessity also be critical and use similar terminology. To do otherwise would be false balance, and give undue weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The National Post describes FAIR as "an advocacy organization dedicated to civil rights and anti-discrimination" here.
This New Yorker article describes how the organization has tried to pave a lane as a 'anti-woke' but moderate organization, and describes the political polarization (or 'tribalism') that has made that non-partisan mission difficult to maintain.
The Intercept has described FAIR as "a free-speech advocacy organization focused on the culture war over what some refer to as 'wokeness'".
The Chicago Tribune called it "a New York-based special interest group".
The Guardian (currently cited), says FAIR "launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics."
The Emory Wheel, an "independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University", described FAIR as "a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights by finding common ground among people on both sides of an issue", while also discussing opposition to it by students who allege FAIR "is transphobic and against critical race theory (CRT)."
----
The current header paints the group in a tilted light. How do we go about making it more representative of a variety of reliable independent sources, and more accurate? As it stands, saying FAIR "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)" is misleading if not incorrect. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
"I reverted this edit because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and the WaPo article cited is very clearly not an opinion article."
Would it be more accurate and precise to do so regardless? We may not need to write in a more precise way, but surely it would be better if we did?
On the other hand, the nuance of the paragraph being discussed is rather gutted by inserting at the very end that The Washington Post (as credible and respected as the organization is) has called FAIR conservative. The placement of the sentence at the end, as the last word, and the imprecision (even if technically allowed) seems to be a variation of an appeal to authority fallacy, if not a thought-terminating assertion. Do others find this a reasonable assessment? AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th @Jweiss11 Thoughts? AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
What you're advocating for here is in-text attribution, something we have guidance for. There are a few circumstances where we need it, particularly when a source is marginally reliable, if the source is an opinion article, or if we're including content that diverges from the majority viewpoint on a given topic. None of those are indicated here, and the content we've been discussing is the mainstream view about FAIR.
There is also a risk that when we use in-text attribution, that we can inadvertently introduce neutrality issues, as by attributing it to a single publication or author in a publication, we are drawing a small degree of scepticism on what the source is saying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jweiss11 @Sideswipe9th @Hipal. I cited a wide range of reliable publications, left, centre to right, who characterize FAIR differently from what the current opening does. Citing from two obscure left publications, and an article in the WaPo (which I would call an op-ed, but I'm assuming there is no room for nuance there since the publication does not explicitly label it as Opinion), is not representative of the mainstream view. The Guardian (left publication) classifies it as "anti-woke", as does The New Yorker (lean-left). That is not counting publishers closer to centre or right. Although in my personal opinion, anti-woke is probably neutral enough, and closer to representative of a 'mainstream view' - if there is one. AnExtraEditor (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
We are getting unfamiliar editors undoing edits of the opener. Until we reach a consensus, the opener ought to be reduced to the section that is not disputed w NPOV. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The version that you have restored multiple times is not neutral, and is wholly unsupported by sources. Please self-revert to the long-standing consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
See the above list of sources I worked to provide, from across the spectrum.
From my understanding of the Talk page, the long-standing version was not consensus, but rather people gave up trying to create NPOV due to a adamant and uncompromising small group (or maybe even 1-2) editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
e.g., @Jweiss11, @Springee, @Loksmythe, @AnimalParty!, @BonaparteIII.
As JWeiss mentioned: "...the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. ..."
we should try a stab at coming up with a consensus version. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Please work here and get consensus first, if you're not blocked or banned for what you've done so far. --Hipal (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It's what we have been trying to do, but with little to no response over long periods of time.
As JWeiss stated, the longstanding version was not consensus but sort of grandfathered in, and then became too big a beast to change without a fight every step of the way. As I've mentioned above, anti-woke is a good starting point for describing the org, as it has been called that from across the spectrum in the sources who have published on FAIR. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hipal, go easy with the threats to AnExtraEditor, please. The existing lead still has major problems, which AnExtraEditor is attempting to remedy. First, the lead cites a non-reliable source (Matthew McCreadie in Passage) and employs weasel words ("that it calls"). That being said, the lead should make reference to "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives" in some way. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing the article is not appropriate, and was disruptive. Removing context so the only substantive information in the lead was what the foundation calls itself is unacceptably promotional. Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for public relations. This is a long-standing policy, so local consensus among ideologically sympathetic editors cannot over-ride this.

"Anti-woke" is meaningless. Those sources put "woke" in scare quotes for a reason. "Woke" is so broad and so empty it tells readers nothing but allows sympathetic readers to fill-in the gaps with their own assumptions. This is absolutely not what we want readers to do, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we called it "anti-woke" we would have to, at bare minimum, explain to readers what that actually means, which is both impossible and also far, far out of scope for this article. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Grayfell, as I explained above, the article began as an attack piece, and we've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. This recent article from The New Yorker should be helpful. https://archive.li/sbbLj. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
let's look at that article, thanks for linking again. I linked a bunch of other reliable and varying sources in my earlier message.
I only suggested anti-woke because a wide variety of sources use that description. Your right on the ambiguity of it, so perhaps political correctness would be more specific. Nonetheless, the main thrust of FAIR seems to me to be based instead on race - such as race-based affirmative action or otherwise selecting between people based on their immutable characteristics.
The only thing I would add is that there was not consensus on the long-standing version of the article, and to bring that up is necessary, not a disruptive attempt to edit by ideologically sympathetic editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
A neutral description of this foundation from independent sources is not an "an attack piece". The foundation would, like any foundation, chose to present its goals in the most flattering way possible. In this case that means bland PR and euphemistic waffle about "wokeness". As I already mentioned, Misplaced Pages will still summarize WP:IS, because this is an encyclopedia, not a corporate wire service.
"Political correctness" is slightly less ambiguous than "woke", but not by enough. The two terms share similar histories of being first used tongue-in-cheek by leftists, growing in popularity, and then being co-opted by the right to be a buzzword to represent socially progressive ideas that they dislike. Like "woke", "political correctness" doesn't mean very much any more, and use of the term would just reaffirm the reader's prior assumptions without providing any falsifiable information.
Saying the main thrust of FAIR is race is valid, but incomplete. What, exactly, are WP:IS saying about FAIR and race? This is specifically about the 2020s controversies around critical race theory, which falls under WP:FRINGE for several reasons. As an encyclopedia, we take this kind of misinformation seriously, and topics like this are not the place for bland PR or vague euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Grayfell, when I said this article began as an "attack piece", I'm talking about this version and those close to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism&oldid=1136700156. Do you think the article in that state was a neutral description of the organization? Jweiss11 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence does have issues. Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far. This is a reasonable distinction to make even if it's not as easy to parse out. Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting. The NYT specifically warned about this . Also, we need to be careful when throwing out claims of whitewashing. In an ideal world we would be able to find a source that very clearly draws lines between what the subject does/doesn't do. Just because a generally reliable source uses a broad brush description doesn't mean we shouldn't narrow it to the parts that are actually supported. As an example, a group that specifically focuses on trans-issues might be broadly labeled "pro-LGBTQ" but would more accurately be described as "pro-trans". The same might be true of a group that is "pro-farmer" but specifically focuses on small scale specialty farms rather than large farms. If the sources make the focus clear and the subject's claimed focus agrees then we should be more specific in our description. Springee (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thank you @Springee for putting into words a good bit of what I have otherwise struggled to convey.
"Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far."
Correct. There is nuance here that is currently missed, and thus leads to a misleading (if not false) characterization. This is why I removed it.
"Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting. The NYT specifically warned about this "
If I'm understanding your point correctly, this was what I was trying to explain earlier, although @Sideswipe9th answered that because the WaPo article was not labeled opinion, we can't distinguish between normative claims and objective claims within the article - like calling the group conservative (a normative claim). AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Looking at it again now (I think some of the previous unreliable/biased citations that I mentioned were removed? - e.g., Matthew McCreadie's article in The Maple, the article from Passage), I'm struggling to see where any of the cited articles support the sentence:
"... that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)"
Can someone explain where that comes from in the articles? I'm not sure what we do on Misplaced Pages, but including citations without explicit reference to the content you took from them is improper citation, or to 'pad a paper' as professors say.
/////
The Washington Post article (left lean - but more specifically this author/article) mentions FAIR briefly, and talks about a local chapter's actions (can this be attributed to the main org. itself?).
The Lancaster Online article (reliable?) also briefly mentioned the org in a piece on a larger issue. It uses a (guilt by association?) fallacy, writing: "(FAIR) describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, but prominent conservatives sit on its board of advisers". Regardless of the fallacy/rhetorical device, it might be the case that the board leans towards conservatives (not ignoring classical liberals, or centrists, or liked-minded folks on the left), I'm not sure - this would just make sense given it is opposed to mainstream policy choices supported by the left.
Chalkbeat article (left lean)- provides slightly more detail, writing: "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT and broadly advocates for a “human first” mindset — something critics liken to an “All Lives Matter” mentality." So this is the first instance I see of direct support for something that would convey that FAIR has criticized CRT - not the weasel worded "antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)".
Valley News (left) Talks more in depth on FAIR. They write "... but its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals, and much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." Although backers is vague, the assertion that all are conservative is false if you take it to mean the organizations' leadership, and board of advisors. That said, we again have support for something in our article that states they have criticized or have content that fights against CRT.
Guardian (left): "(Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics." Okay, so support for the anti-woke characterization. It continues, "The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell opposed and has highlighted a legal challenge to a debt relief program for Black farmers as a “profile in courage”. So, two specific policies they are against here, which seem to centre around CRT and a lack of "countervailing perspectives" for the former, and race-based affirmative action for the latter.
Continued, "Those who take the Fair “pledge” can also join a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.” - again, CRT support.
I'll end by mentioning - there is nothing wrong with citing publications that lean left, but you see the issue here with lack of balance.
Anywho, let's fix the opener here now that we know what is supported from these articles, and what isn't. It would also be helpful to add more balance by adding reliable independent sources from the centre or right. AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the body; and the sentence you object to broadly summarizes the "opposition to critical race theory" section. It's also not really useful to indicate your own personal objections to the conclusions of sources; they say what they say. Misplaced Pages is based on the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage, and the bulk of the sources, as reflected in the body, are accurately summarized by the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
the body, if I am not mistaken, is still largely built from the initial article on FAIR, which was far from balanced (e.g., see @Jweiss11's comments). I.E., A. "the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage" and B. "the bulk of the sources, as reflected in the body" are unfortunately not the same thing. That is part of the problem.
If you disagree with my analysis, you are free (actually, encouraged) to point out where specifically it is wrong. The above concerns from multiple editors are valid and explained with support. Very specific instances of improper citation are not just 'personal objections'. I take the point however that logical fallacies in cited articles may not be a concern of ours - I'm new here and not familiar with all the policy.
Moving forward, see the list of sources I cited above, including the Guardian article, New Yorker, The Intercept, The Chicago Tribune, etc. for a more balanced and mainstream coverage of FAIR than what is currently cited in the opener. AnExtraEditor (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing what you personally feel is "balanced" with what WP:NPOV requires. Seeking out sources that better fit your personal opinions is cherry-picking, the very opposite of what NPOV requires. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I concur with AnExtraEditor about these sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Hipal, the comments raised by @Springee, or those I’ve raised - can you please be specific in where these sources are unreliable or unbalanced or otherwise?
I’ve spent a good deal of time being very specific in where the current opener and citations seem to need improvement. Dismissing these efforts as cherry picking on its face doesn’t seem constructive and keeps bringing us back to accusations instead of progress on the article. I’m trying my best to access contributions with respect here, but I don’t feel it’s being reciprocated in this case. Let’s work together and be very specific in errors or corrections that others raise. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Categorizing sources as "left" or "left-leaning" or similar is a dead-end. In the past, editors have tried to discredit sources by categorizing them as ideologically opposed to the topics they cover, but this obviously cannot work. We are looking for sources which are willing to oppose the thing they are covering. A willingness to look critically at a topic is part of what makes sources reliable and independent. To putit another way: We are looking for independent sources, and if those sources happen to be "left-leaning" according to you (or commonly used but unreliable blogs like WP:ADFONTES or WP:MBFC or similar) than so be it. Either they are reliable in this context or they are not. We don't look for right-wing sources to 'balance out' left-wing ones, because that would be false balance.
Likewise, it's not up to you as an editor to decide whether or not the organization's leadership is conservative or right-wing or whatever else, it is up to sources. If sources consistently mention that this organization is right-wing (which is not an extraordinary claim) our task is to figure out how to summarize them neutrally, not to disprove them individually via WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"eough" = "enough" 2603:8000:D300:3650:E851:B5B3:6F7E:2292 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done interestingly, looks like the news source we copy/pasted this quote from made this error and we carried it on. Cannolis (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Reverting recent vandalism and OR

Could somebody revert the recent IP vandalism to the article?

  • Here they updated the lead to say FAIR opposed antiracism initiatives that it calls "critical race theory" to antiracism initiatives rooted in critical race theory (CRT). This has already been discussed on the talk page, the RS are very clear that FAIR calls things CRT (and is often wrong), we don't have RS saying the initiatives they oppose are rooted in CRT.
  • In the same edit, they added It instead favors rooting them in liberalism and provides such programming along those lines such as its own ethnic-studies curriculum based on liberal ideals instead of CRT. to the lead, before adding a reference in the next edit to a New Yorker Article
  • The source does not actually support this, the closest thing it says is Under Bartning’s direction, FAIR created its own ethnic-studies curriculum, which was free for teachers and school districts to adapt.. It uses the word liberal twice, neither time attributing it to FAIR.

In addition, @ElrondPA's edit here should be partially reverted (keeping the spelling fixes) per WP:OR, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE.

  • It changes In May 2023, FAIR sponsored a letter to Springer Nature demanding they refuse to retract a methodologically flawed paper to ... demanding they refuse to retract an allegedly methodologically flawed paper (emphasis added)
  • To be clear, the paper in question has a retraction notice explicitly saying The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent. The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.
  • It also added the text though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained. This is citing a piece in UnHerd (a previous RSN discussion found it almost entirely undue opinion pieces at best, generally unreliable otherwise), which lauds the WP:FRINGE activist J. Michael Bailey and cites the FRINGE group SEGM. The author's bio in the article links to her substack, where she lists her writing for other FRINGE groups like Genspect and contains dozens of articles of her misgendering and ranting about trans people. Of note, as noted in this article, FAIR has frequently worked with Genspect/SEGM and shares board members, they are hardly independent. An opinion piece citing WP:FRINGE groups to attack a scientific publisher and defend their members is not WP:DUE

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please revert the vandalism/OR/undue additions discussed above. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Please keep discussions in one thread. You should be able to edit the page yourself. Thank you! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it is in the same thread. Nevermind then. But, you don't need to add the "semi-edit request" because the page is not protected, so I've removed it for you. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Myrealnamm, sorry if I used the wrong template, I'm unused to edit requests - I would fix it myself, but I'm under strict 0RR for this article so cannot do so. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Hist9600 thanks for dealing with that OR just now! Just wanted to get your thoughts on the issues above, I'd forgotten about them but was reminded when this popped back in my watchlist lol. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I've trimmed the Unherd bit. If nothing else, "...though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained" is unacceptably vague and loaded. Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Any thoughts on the first bit regarding pov/OR additions to the lead? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Fixed these. As you said, neither source really stated that the group advocates for liberal ideals. And the uncritical use of the term CRT, when that can be used as a blanket term for any number of things, is something we should be careful not to put in wikivoice. Hist9600 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"that it calls" in the lead is weasel wordy. I was in involved in discussions about this last year, but I don't believe we ever had a resolution. If FAIR has misattributed something that is not CRT as being CRT, then some source should clearly explain that. Do we have such a source? The Chalkbeat source cited in the lead simply says "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT". The Valley News says "much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." None of the five sources cited in the lead suggest a misattribution of the term "CRT" by FAIR. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We are clearly attributing it to FAIR, so it would be more MOS:ALLEGED than weasel... but it's not even that. We are not casting doubt on this via word tricks, this is just a summary. The lead summarizes the body, and this is explained in detail in Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism#Opposition to critical race theory. Accepting FAIR's boutique definition of CRT would be a WP:PROFRINGE issue. They are opposing a specific version of CRT that is not similar to the mainstream definition of the term. To imply otherwise would be misleading. Grayfell (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The Lancaster Online piece seems to be the only source that addresses the issue of FAIR's interpretation of the term "CRT". Is there anything else there? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Chalkbeat: CRT has become a political flashpoint, dominating headlines and school board meetings ever since the Manhattan Institute’s Christopher Rufo claimed that CRT had infiltrated the federal government and public schools ... The education department maintains that CRT is not taught in the city’s public schools, but some parents disagree. ... Although CRT is not taught in NYC public schools, the city recently pledged multiple efforts to create a culturally responsive curriculum ... While Ansari learned more about CRT, she began to see that it was being used as a catchall term to define some of the work she had been doing for years to uplift marginalized voices. She saw criticisms of CRT as an attack on recent efforts to integrate anti-bias training and racial justice initiatives into education.
Washington Post: The conservatives had taken office after a campaign focused on race and allegations that critical race theory had invaded the local schools, the most diverse in El Paso County. ... “The number one question that people are asking me: ‘Is critical race theory in our classrooms?’ ” Thomas told the school board at its Aug. 4 work session. It’s not, he said. “When people are conflating equity with critical race theory, they’re grossly mistaken.” ... Critical race theory, an academic construct that looks at the consequences of systemic racism, is not taught in K-12 classrooms, though the underlying ideas are part of lessons and policies in many places. And the equity findings that Knox-Miller was about to present were based on the idea that there was in fact systemic racism in the district.
The Guardian: But alongside this reassessment, another American tradition re-emerged: a reactionary movement bent on reasserting a whitewashed American myth. These reactionary forces have taken aim at efforts to tell an honest version of American history and speak openly about racism by proposing laws in statehouses across the country that would ban the teaching of “critical race theory” ... While diversity training and the 1619 Project have been major targets, critical race theory has more recently become the watchword of the moral panic. Developed by Black legal scholars at Harvard in the 1980s, critical race theory is a mode of thinking that examines the ways in which racism was embedded into American law. ... But in the hands of the American right, critical race theory has morphed into an existential threat. ... A host of new organizations has also sprung up to spread the fear of critical race theory far and wide. The Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics. The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell ... For some of these groups, critical race theory is just one of many “liberal” ideas they don’t want their children to learn. ... For others, it seems possible that attacking critical race theory is just a smokescreen for a bog standard conservative agenda. ... Whatever their motives, today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic. ... Laats suspects that the right is using “critical race theory” as a euphemism. “You can’t go to a school board and say you want to ban the idea that Black Lives Matter.
Valley News: America’s school boards have once again become battlegrounds as a network of national groups stoke fears about “critical race theory,” a once-obscure academic theory turned by conservatives into a catch-all bogeyman signifying progressive school initiatives. ... “CRT is not a K-12 thing. It just isn’t,” said Darren Allen, a spokesperson for the Vermont-NEA, the state teachers union. “Critical race theory is not taught in K-12 schools,” echoed Maulucci, Scott’s press secretary. And indeed, critical race theory is an academic and legal framework dating back to the 1970s, whose debates have mostly played out in college seminars and academic journals. By and large, Vermont’s K-12 schools are not engaging with advanced graduate-level coursework. ... But like many of his peers, Castle also said “critical race theory” has been miscast by those who seek to combat it. The point, he said, is absolutely not to make white children feel guilt or shame. ... For Badams, the SAU 70 superintendent, the slippery way in which critical race theory has been defined by its opponents leaves schools with the impossible task of “disproving a negative.” ... The anti-critical race theory panic has been described by many education officials and critics on the left as an astroturfed movement, imported from well-funded right-wing organizations from outside.
The sources cited in the lead all either 1) flat out say CRT isn't taught, 2) note many deny its taught, 3) call the anti-CRT movement a moral panic or 4) all of the above. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but none of these sources state that FAIR has misconstrued what CRT is, much less explain how in any substantive way. Only the Guardian passage specifically refers to FAIR. If "that it refers to" is relying on those passages from those sources, then that's an OR/SYNTH. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
wow this page got so much less neutral, somehow haha. yikes. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. "Open Letter in Support of Dr. Kenneth Zucker and the Need to Promote Robust Scientific Debate". Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism. May 5, 2023. Retrieved April 2, 2024.
  2. Mondegreen, Eliza (June 12, 2023). "Publisher doubles down on retracted gender paper". Retrieved April 2, 2024.
Categories: