Talk:Teaching for social justice

message: - not only in the history. And if someone is going to take this to AfD, do it already. Let's just move forward here, and quit griping about everything you don't like. I have taken a stab at cleaning up some of the issues in this piece, and I've hit a wall - so someone else needs to do something, anything. That means something other than simply complaining though. - Freechild 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Seems to me there is universal agreement that the contribution is lacking in scholarly merit, and some disagreement about whether it also is biased. I was disappointed by the quality of scholarship, and do hope that someone who is well versed in this area can do a complete rewrite. DavidKirshner (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is the stupidest article I've ever read on Wikipedia. I think it should be marked for deletion. It provides no backup to facts, no proofs, just a copy of some stupid secondary-education student's term paper. I'm sure she got an A.
I agree, there is pretty much nothing in this article worth keeping. Nominating it for deletion GordonRoss 02:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Trash

message: This article doesn't simply cross the line with regards to the NPOV policy, it rockets over it. Parts of this article read like a poorly cited term paper, whereas other parts more closely resemble educational propaganda. Many of the statements presented in this article are *not* shown to be based in fact. No, it doesn't matter that the opinions presented are 'critical' ones. Where is the criticism section of this 'critical' article? I know full well that what has been presented here is controversial at the very least and cannot bring myself to believe that no one has offered up any contradictory material. Wikipedia is not a platform for broadcasting propaganda. This article needs to properly cite sources for its radical claims or retract them entirely. 72.69.7.92 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct that this topic is very biased, especially by the fact that it is written so that even the "criticism" section seems to reaffirm the assumption that promoting "social justice" is an essential mission of education. I am certain that I am not alone not only in denying that assumption, but also finding this entire doctrine dreadful. A more neutral summary of this doctrine needs to be written.--Luftschiffritter5 1 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely Biased 

message: The first unfortunality of this article is in citing Freire as the originator of educating for social justice -- and this is informative in understanding who has written this piece.  The concept of social justice was conceived much prior to the era of Freire.  Why is DuBois not mentioned?  This initial assertion is indicitive of the lack of historical perspective this piece exudes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.213.10 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumptions 

message: People put out something that they think ought be recepted as fact, and a lot of people disagree, or at least see thorugh the assumptions.
I heart Wikipedia!
I am an advocate for teaching for social justice -- but I happen to hold my own opinion in subjectivity and strive to see things from many perspectives.  This article has not done that!
The voices involved coulden't see themselves if they had a mirror in front of them!
Here it is -- read through the stuff again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.150.213.10 (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Classic 

message: I took a stab at making some of the clear subjectiveness of this article less so in one section, but their seems a clear culturally and politically encapsulation here in the unaddressed premises, assumptions and understandings embedded in the structure, and this makes the entirety of the piece quite biased and problematic for this genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.52.218.154 (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. (RookZERO 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Problems

message: This article needs a lot of work, in form, content and style of prose. From the experience of writing youth voice, you should also expect that this article will probably be disputed, as well. Great start though! - Freechild 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heads-up

message: The noncompliant tag had been restored after its unilateral deletion.  The talk page still explains why the article was so tagged to begin with.  The problems have NOT been solved.  (RookZERO 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what solution do you offer, other than deletion of the article? Given that, for instance, my little girl goes to a school in which this is one of their main goals and specialties, that seems counter-productive. If it's biased, why aren't you editing it? --Orange Mike 17:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: restoration of tag deletion

message: Somebody did try to address the NPOV allegations by inserting a "Criticism" section. Aside from the fact that "criticism" sections per se are deprecated, it was written in a non-encyclopedic manner. I do hope some of this article's critics will look at the stuff I clipped and see if something can be salvaged in the interest of genuine neutrality. --Orange Mike 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Why is it necessary to teach for social justice ? Is there a conspiracy somewhere there ? Is somebody interested in doing social injustice to somebody else ? 80.178.205.228 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Advocates of teaching for social justice feel that traditional curricula generally have ignored or even deprecated issues of social justice, which are (in their opinions) as central to citizenship as many of the topics which traditional curricula do address. --Orange Mike 14:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[conspiracy theory]]?

message: The recent content added to the Influences section, Rawls v. Hayek v. Nozick, has a number of issues. The first is weight, WP:UNDUE, giving an entire paragraph to Swift's views. To include more than a sentence or two of coverage, you would need to show that Swift's work is highly influential to the field. The second issue is article scope. Wikipedia articles are relatively tightly focused on the subject, since related subjects are easily wikilinked. In this case, we have Social justice which covers the influence of Rawls and Hayek and the development of the philosophical idea. This information does not need to be repeated in 'Teaching for social justice' unless there are specific, relevant quotes from people writing about the teaching movement. Lastly, wikipedia articles are significantly different from academic essay writing, see WP:NOTESSAY and the content as written has some essay-like qualities.Dialectric (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences section 

message: There are so many opinions and unsubstantiated assumptions in this article--and a quick look through the talk page and edit history indicates that there have been for years--that it's hard to know where to start. Virtually the entire "Applications" section is written from the perspective of an enthusiastic believer in "teaching for social justice." It's just an instruction manual preaching to the already converted. There's nothing encyclopedic about it. As the "Applications" section is the heart of the article, it raises the serious question of whether this article is even salvageable. Its continued existence through the years, despite all the animosity on the talk page and all the unresolved problems and tags within the text, is probably attributable to inertia more than anything else. Unless someone with the scholarly knowledge and, above all else, the objectivity, can bring this article up to snuff, I think we should seriously consider bringing it up for deletion once again (a procedure I do not have experience with, so this would need to be a group effort). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are reliable references on the topic, deletion is unlikely to succeed and a more effective approach would be to stub and rework the article. I suggest retaining all of the existing sources, if only in a 'further reading section', then moving all unencyclopedic and poorly written content to the talk page, and removing it from the article. If other editors think portions should be added back, that can be discussed on talk. Unfortunately, a few editors have chosen to work on this article as their sole contribution to wikipedia, not in itself a problem, but they also did not respond to talk page messages, and didn't appear to have a clear sense of wikipedia style or guidelines.Dialectric (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I like the sound of that; it strikes me as more restrained and more practicable than the whole "scrap it all!" position that I was staking out. Let's see if we get any more interest in a revamp and then we can consider making some substantive changes. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article even salvageable?