Wikipedia:Peer review/Competitive debate in the United States/archive2

Competitive debate in the United States

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FAC sometime in the near future but have exhausted my own capabilities. Any additional sets of eyes would be much appreciated.

Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti

Hey, Thadeus! Starting my participation in the review. Looking at the successful GAN, I must admit a bit of concern regarding its depth (though I do thoroughly agree with the outcome). I'll start by moving through the article chronologically with one exception: the lead looks good but I have yet to thoroughly review whether the lead's contents are wholly verified by the body, so that bit will come last. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this and will try to get around to responding this weekend, but with the holidays will be quite busy. Thanks so much! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Logging that I am home and should have time to start responding to this in detail on Thursday! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I have made some changes, have noted the ones to work on, and have a clarification question for you at the bottom. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• History
  • I made some trivial changes to the sentence beginning "Benjamin Wadsworth attempted to continue...", which included using a lowercase U for "university" per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. This is not part of the GA criteria, so not a major concern.
    •  Done Thank you!
  • The section title Debate as an in-class teaching tool: 1642–1892 seems unsupported by the section's content. You should provide a basis for the 1642 date in the article and move content that postdates the 1892 cut-off to another section. I would encourage just removing the dates altogether.
    •  Done Headings have been rewritten
  • The opening paragraph is ordered in a somewhat confusing manner. Chronologically, the 1925 events at Harvard should come after the 1809 events at Brown. Also, provide a specific date or general periodization (i.e. a decade or half-century; 1642 to 1892 is too broad a window to generalize) both the "quickly took a dislike to the conversations" statement and "packs of profound nonsense" quote.
    •  In progress I will need to consult the original source here to add that information. I am bringing a group of kids to an out-of-town tournament this weekend and will bring my stack of debate books to work on this in between rounds!
  • Consider rewriting the first paragraph to better summarize the whole of US debating history and elevate this paragraph above any of the more discrete sections.
    •  In progress This is a very good idea and, again, will be done this weekend.
  • In this same paragraph, there is an issue of contradiction: "The last recorded syllogistic disputation at any university was held at Brown University in 1809." However, the same paragraph addresses disputations running at Harvard through at least 1935. Is there a qualified form of "syllogistic disputations" that ceased to exist after 1809 or were the disputations of the early 20th century not syllogistic disputations? If the latter, move the Harvard content to a separate paragraph and articulate what sort of disputations they were.
    •  In progress I will need to consult the original source here to see whether the contradiction is from me or it - Again, that'll happen this weekend.
  • File:Example debate card.png presents two separate issues for me. 1.) The placement seems imperfect. I'd prefer an image of a space of historic importance to American debate rather than an example of tool utilized in modern practice. 2.) I'm not totally assure of the image's copyright status. Due to the dead link provided as a basis of the card's contents, I can not verify any public domain release. Please articulate how the image is public domain. If it was invented by an editor as an example and released into the public domain, I have questions about why there is somewhat random highlighting in the image.
    • { In progress When I originally added this, I thought it was public domain as a publication of the US Government, but it looks like it may have been pulled from an outside source and just reprinted on that page. I've preemptively removed the image. I have questions about why there is somewhat random highlighting in the image: It's just standard card format. As a replacement, I'm going to reach out to Ryan Wash and see if he has any images that he'd be willing to release - As a member of the first all-Black team to win NDT, running a highly progressive style of argument, that'd probably be a better representation of the changes that took place in that era.
  • Paragraph beginning "This early form of debate" is pretty solid–good work. Consider subbing "informal" for "looser" for the ironic purpose of sounding more formal.
    •  Done
  • "Around the time of the forensic disputation's decline" is a bit vague; if possible, be more concrete by saying like "Coincident with forensic disputation's decline" or provide a specific periodization. If the decline is directly attributed to literary societies in RSs (which, from what I'm seeing, is the case), restructure that sentence to more clearly establish that relationship instead of only implying it in the sentence beginning "Students preferred debating within".
  • I fixed this case of out-of-order chronology.
    •  Done Thank you!
  • Another instance of self-contradiction: "the few remaining becoming full-fledged debating societies, teams, and clubs" contradicts "By the 1890s, literary societies had created standardized structures for debate rounds consisting of prepared cases and extemporaneous rebuttals in a close approximation of modern-day practices". The first statement suggests that the Civil War directly resulted in a rapid and non-continuous evolution of these groups into different organizations; the latter statement suggests they persisted for several decades and gradually evolved.
  • Do these literary societies belong under the heading of "in-class teaching tool"? They seem to have been academically managed but I don't see clear indication they were used in the classroom as conventionally understood.
    •  Done I have updated the heading to be Debate as an intramural activity which I think better reflects the content.
  • The periodization of the section Development of intercollegiate debate: 1892–1925 feels directly contradicted when the first sentence opens with "In 1873" and the section ends with a sentence starting with "By 1927". I again encourage the removal of such periodization in section titles.
    •  Done
  • Is that first issue of The Forensic from 1915 the only source we have on this material? If so, I think it is probably a fine enough RS. However, I don't know if it qualifies as independent enough and its age makes it less than ideal. If retained, add page numbers to the citation.
    •  Half done I have added page numbers. I believe this is the only source listing all four. I think independence could be a concern but it's not being used to support any controversial statements.
  • State where was Phi Alpha Tau established and whether the surviving fraternity at Emerson is associated with debate.
    •  Done
  • The passage "by saying that women 'do no credit either to themselves or to co-education in general'" is a bit vague: do women in general not "credit" themselves to co-education (which seems so self-evidently contradictory that even the misogynist behind the statement would've noticed) or is it just women debaters?
    •  Done I think it's both - Women would discredit themselves and the ideal of co-education if they were allowed to participate in a debate. I expanded the quote slightly but the source is freely accessible on IA if you have a different read than me.
  • "Carly Woods wrote in her 2018 book Debating Women"–I approve of the inline attribution but would prefer you identify what qualifies Woods to comment on this subject (e.g. "Historian of American debating Carly Woods" or "Carly Woods, a historian of American debating,") rather than naming her book. Ignore this comment if there is reason to believe that Debating Women has been the subject of substantial academic discussion or is regularly referenced in recently published literature on this subject.
    •  Done I've changed it to "American professor of communications." Not sure if one has to explicitly be a professor of history to be described as a "historian," but much of Woods' academic work has been historical in nature.
  • "By 1927, the number of women participating in intercollegiate debate had grown to such an extent that 90% of debate teams had female competitors." That stat rules and is presented in a well-written sentence. Good work.
    •  Done Glad I did at least one thing right!
  • Consider finding a way to separate the development of high school debate into a level two section (==...==). That material feels sufficiently distinct and of such importance that it probably merits emphasis.
    •  Not done Can you clarify what you mean by this? A section distinct from the rest of the "History" section or something else?

Urve

I would oppose promotion at FAC. Largely agree with above. I'm not sure having an image of a cut card is relevant to the activity as a whole, esp. when there are formats of debate that do not systematically require (or don't have norms for) carded evidence. The file requires too much explanation to aid readers.

• I think the article fails to adequately contextualize the "rise" of nonstandard / critical / "performance" debate. (See Christie & Sciullo in the special issue "In Honor of the Louisville Project" and Sciullo 2019 for a discussion of terminology and whether it's appropriate for us to be using it.)
• And of course, while there's been a big stink about the K, it's far from the only tactic that's been criticized historically. See doi:10.1080/00028533.1989.11951389, and the larger edited issue, for the development of the counterplan as a controversial position.
• The article's portrayal of the K as "not requir[ing] competitors to directly debate the assigned topic" is only technically correct; critical affirmatives certainly do not directly debate the topic, but off-case K debate is as much a direct confrontation with the topic as a counterplan or topicality. These arguments rely on the theory of the negative as carrying a burden of rejoinder, not proof (i.e., it is sufficient to disprove the affirmative rather than prove the negative).
• The K is not described in a level of detail that is proportionate to secondary literature on the subject. Though old, Gerke may be a god description of what the K aims to achieve, and gives an overview of objections and a strong defense. Our article uses judgmental language like "Nevertheless" which suggests that the K is not a legitimate position in debate, or that it is understandably maligned - a proposition that probably hasn't been widely accepted for 20 years.
• I know there are criticisms of 'spreading' dating at least to the early 90s by people that aren't Ted Cruz or writers of Catholic magazines; too busy to find now, but they're in debate conference proceedings. Also criticisms of how speaking is evaluated (i.e., that it's not - points are awarded on other grounds than speaking ability). Interesting there's no criticism of the trite and overused 'nuclear war' scenario despite, e.g., Sciullo's chapter in Supporting the Military-Affiliated Learner: Communication Approaches to Military Pedagogy and Education.
• More mention of collegiate programs other than NDT/CEDA are probably warranted.

Maybe more later. Urve (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen this and will try to get around to responding sometime this weekend, but with the holidays will be quite busy. Thanks so much! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Logging that I am home and should have time to start responding to this in detail on Thursday! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Urve: There is a lot of really helpful feedback here, thank you! I especially appreciate that you've linked some sources which I had not stumbled across in my research. I will take some time to read through those and think about how best to incorporate them into the article over this weekend and will hopefully have a much-better article by Sunday night. Do you have an opinion on a replacement image for the card? I have reached out to the NDT to see if there are images that could be released from the 2013 tournament but am open to suggestions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth. No idea on what to do about the card, unfortunately. NDT images sound good, hopefully it works out. Structural comments and a bit of navel-gazing below.

• Regarding § See also, my understanding is that these sections are disfavored at FAC because any articles relevant enough to be included there should also be discussed in the body. See the disclaimer at MOS:ALSO.
• Re: § In popular culture - see MOS:POPCULT which suggests to me that the way we have it organized currently is not ideal. There are no criteria for inclusion and the section is written as a list when it should probably be spelled out in prose. Not entirely convinced it should have a section at all, but not set on it.
• I don't know if alumni sections are standard for this type of article; this is not a populated place, a specific organization, or educational institution, so it seems out-of-place.

Sorry to be so negative, in this and the first set of comments. I think taking this article to FAC is ambitious and I support your intentions. [ Well, actually, I think FAC's continued existence is objectionable, so I don't support your precise intentions, but I won't bore you with that ;) .] I just think the complicated recent political history of debate makes this very difficult ... debate history is mostly oral or ephemeral ... RSes take for granted common community knowledge ... the persistent and intentional exclusion of minority debaters has created a wide lag between action and recognition in RSes ... many debate-specific RSes are decidedly conservative (if not outright reactionary) so the way they understand debate history is suspect at best ... etc. Happy to chat by email if you think it'd be helpful. I have this page watchlisted in case you want more comments. Urve (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Negativity is good! No way for me to improve the article without some criticism, and I definitely agree about debate history being oral - There were a lot of changes that got made early on in the drafting process when I realized I couldn't find specific sources supporting things I knew to be true. It's also definitely not my intention to disparage progressive debate so I want to make sure I improve that discussion as much as I can. I will let you know in a few days once I've had a chance to implement some of your feedback :). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Quick comments from Sdkb

I read the lead and very quickly skimmed the rest. The immediate things I notice:

• I'm not a fan of the first sentence with "has a history". The more standard way to begin an article is to define what the thing is, and I don't see a compelling reason to deviate from that here. "Has a history..." sounds like either the beginning of an academic essay about debate's history or a promotional blurb trying to increase the activity's prestige by establishing its long background.
• There's a substantial section in the body about discrimination, but no mention in the lead. If the section in the body is due at its current length, I'd expect a one-sentence summary of it in the lead.
• I wonder if a see also section listing similar activities (Boys/Girls State, Junior State of America, Model United Nations in the United States) might be helpful.

Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Sdkb! I have made some changes to the article to fix these things. I reworked the first couple sentences of the lead and added a sentence that reads "Competitors and coaches have made efforts to reduce discrimination in the debate community by introducing new arguments and recruiting debaters from underprivileged communities." For the See Also section, I added the three you mentioned along with Mock trial - I am unsure if there are any obvious omissions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)