Talk:Microaggression

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LilliBaldner, Caelenmw (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Oskeans, CKRRKQ.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maddek, MariVillal.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2021 and 6 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicgrana. Peer reviewers: MedLife4, Zweathersby, Skymcm2015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajain02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kliu38.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reason this article primarily deals with the US

In My Opinion, it only deals with the United States because, in my political conservative opinion, this is the leftists stirring the pot, mainly democrats and progressives and post-modernist only prevalent in the U.S. and I think this'll never spread, so this article does not need fixing, and I think it is just another political ruse. I'd even say due to it being heavily a political ruse, it would be unnotable without the politics behind it. I'm not nominating it for deletion NOW, but it might have to go when the woke wave dies down. but, this is mainly my POLITICAL opinion, however, I still think it is a trivial ruse nonetheless and is not notable. I may be wrong, but I'd have to wait. at best, just remove the template and move on. this only NEEDS to deal with the U.S. since this, microaggression call out stuff isn't a worldwide thing 2189 is out of order (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So the treatment of POC in Europe and Asian cultures, just going to glance past all that? Cheerfully ignore Zwarte Piet, Minstrel shows, and further examples of cultural stereotyping abroad? There's entire swathes of Japanese animation with unfortunate implications & microaggressions. Jynx, Mr. Popo, Axis Powers Hetalia, or ire against the Romani people? 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverted undue additions

There are several problems with the recent additions. First, it's far too much attention to a single source, see WP:UNDUE. Second, wikivoice is used non-neutrally, for example, "A major 2019 study, however, found". Thirdly, the logic of the additions is often unclear. For example, what does "minority identity did not moderate this relationship" mean and what does it have to do with hypersensitivity? NightHeron (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on two of your points and disagree on one. First, I disagree about too much attention to one source. The source is Dr. D.W. Sue’s latest book, and since Dr. Sue is credited throughout the article as the person who popularized the term microaggressions, he has a unique position, especially in responding to his critics, such as Haidt and McWhorter. Wikipedia editors could use other articles Dr. Sue has written to do this, but that seems silly. Why not use Dr. Sue’s latest book with his most recent thinking? Second, I agree quotes were over-used. I will summarize and make it shorter. Third, I agree there were many other concepts discussed in the quotes. I will eliminate the extra information and try again. Thanks!

It appears you either disagree with or misunderstand my objections, since all of them still apply to the revised version, which I reverted. I'll be happy to explain in more detail if you want. For clarity, we could discuss your proposed edits one by one. In that case please give the wording, and if there's something I object to, I'll explain in detail why. (Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes.) NightHeron (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

We could cut and paste my edits from just now, but I believe you can also look at the edits I just made in the edit history. Dr. Sue popularized the term microaggressions, and in many ways the sections on “Emotional Distress” and “Victimhood” are intellectual debates between Dr. Sue and intellectual critics who disagree with the concept of microaggressions and also disagree with causes and potential solutions to emotional distress people may feel surrounding the term. My overall point is that Dr. Sue needs to be able to respond to his critics with his latest thinking, which will create more balance in these sections and perhaps help uncover more truth in either viewpoint. I am open to your specific edits. Please feel free to discuss my most recent edits here and how you would improve them. Thank you again. I am sure you understand why I feel it is important for Dr. Sue to be able to respond to his critics in these sections. Steveok1 (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I also think it is fair to give you a reasonable amount of time (12 hours? more if needed?) to propose edits to my latest submissions in the edit history on this talk page, but if you do not reply in a spirit of improving these sections, I reserve the right to restore my edits. It may require some effort on each of our parts, but I believe that is the spirit of Wikipedia, right? Steveok1 (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not the way it works on Wikipedia. Have you read WP:BRD? The gist of it is that it's fine to boldly make several edits to an article. But when an editor objects and reverts them, then, as described in WP:ONUS, the onus is on the first editor to discuss the edits they want and reach a consensus on what, if anything, should be added to the article. It's not the responsibility of other editors to propose added edits. What I suggest is that you start, one sentence at a time, proposing the wording you'd like to add (and specifying where in the article it would go). I'll respond promptly (certainly in less than 12 hours). Others might also respond. NightHeron (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

That is fine. Would you like to look at my edit history to have this discussion? Or are you asking me to copy and paste each sentence one at a time? In all seriousness, we can go one sentence at a time with copy and paste. Or we can look at my most recent edits in the history to have this discussion one sentence at a time. Steveok1 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can copy and paste here so that everything's in one place, and of course you get to decide in what order we go through them (and if you want to make changes before proposing them here), that would be best. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Let’s start with a sentence I proposed under Criticism > Culture of Victimhood:

“Dr. Sue and his critics seem to agree that emotional distress related to microaggressions exists for many members of ethnic minority groups, but they disagree on the causes and potential solutions to this emotional distress.”

This was meant as a transition statement to Dr. Sue responding to criticisms from Haidt and Lukianoff about victimhood. But is it best to have Dr. Sue respond to Haidt and Lukianoff in the Criticism section (is that standard in Wikipedia articles? Or is it only the critics who make points in the Criticism section? I am not sure). Or what are your thoughts here? Steveok1 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerning that sentence, do you have a source that interprets the area of agreement/disagreement that way, or is that your own summary? Your source is a collection of articles. Is there some place in that collection that you can specifically cite (author, title of article, page number) as saying something like that. Otherwise it falls under WP:NOR and doesn't belong. It's not clear that all the critics would accept that description of where they disagree, so the statement needs to be attributed.

I know of no reason not to include Sue's response, but it has to be brief and to the point. That is, it has to deal specifically with the criticism. NightHeron (talk)

Fair enough about no original research. I found another article which discusses Haidt and Sue. I would rewrite the above sentence as follows:

"Keon West published research which he writes 'takes an important step toward allaying' concerns from critics, such as Scott Lilienfeld and Jonathan Haidt."

Then I would cite this source: https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2019/november/weighing-our-words/

Thoughts? Steveok1 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

That sentence doesn't violate the NOR or NPOV policies, but it's not really informative, since there's no indication what the "important step" is. For example, Lilienfeld's main criticism was what he called "mind-reading", that is, that telling people to be on the lookout for microaggressions will cause them to try to second-guess the intentions of everyone they talk with, always on the lookout for hidden or implicit insults. According to Lilienfeld, that does not help a person's mental health. How does Keon West's research allay that concern? NightHeron (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we can discuss your question in the Mind Reading section, but let's move beyond transition statements for now. Staying in the Emotional Distress section, this is a key sentence (which I agree could be made shorter, but provides six crucial points of evidence challenging the criticisms of Lukianoff and Haidt) using the Keon West research:

'Dr. D.W. Sue, who popularized the term microaggressions, responded to criticisms about emotional distress from Lukianoff and Haidt with evidence from a 2019 study which showed: (a) emotional sensitivity to racial slights was not greater among ethnic minorities “than their majority counterparts,” (b) emotional distress was “due to the inordinately high number of microaggressions that they endured,” (c) the impact of “microaggressions are cumulative” and each incident may represent “a lifetime of humiliation and denigration,” (d) microaggressions are “energy depleting” because they require deciphering “double messages” and can lead to “constant vigilance required for psychological and physical survival,” (e) emotional distress is also tied to “constant reminders of a person’s second-class status in society,” (f) emotional distress is also partly explained because “microaggressions symbolize past historic injustices.”' Steveok1 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see how those six points can support Sue's original thesis by showing that microaggressions do have an impact, and so some mention of the study might belong in the original discussion of Sue's theory. However, I don't see how they logically refute Lukianoff and Haidt's criticism. Their criticism, like Lilienfeld's, has the form "talking a lot about microaggressions and making that a focus of anti-racism or anti-sexism efforts may do more harm than good because of negative consequences such as..." To refute that, a study has to show that those negative consequences don't exist or at least are less significant than the positive consequences of focused efforts on reducing microaggressions and making people more aware of them.

Also, not all of those 6 points seem equally relevant and worthy of mention (even in another part of the article). In particular, (a) seems to say that white people don't get more upset about a Black person not liking whites than a Black person does about a white person not liking Blacks. Of course that's true, since on average white people are more affluent and have more power than Black people (for example, are more likely to be making hiring decisions) and so their prejudice can have more effect on Black people than the reverse. Parts (b) and (c) are also pretty obvious, and (d) seems to support Lilienfeld's thesis that encouraging women and minorities to always be deciphering what people say in search of microaggressions is a bad idea. Perhaps the significance of the study is that it does show that microaggressions can affect the people who are insulted by them, and in that general sense supports Sue's thesis. But it's not a refutation of the critics unless the critics explicitly said the contrary. NightHeron (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I agree responding specifically to individual critiques is the best approach in these sections. I will work on this.

In the meantime, I found what may be a small area of common ground between Dr. Sue and his critics (in fact, Lilienfeld discusses these in an article section called “The Search for Common Ground”). Here are 3 sentences I propose using somewhere in the Criticism section:

‘Lilienfeld, however, agrees with microaggression researchers that “a discussion of microaggressions, however we choose to conceptualize them, may indeed have a place on college campuses and businesses.”’

‘In such conversations, Lilienfeld states it is important to assume “most or all individuals…were genuinely offended,” “to listen nondefensively to their concerns and reactions,” and “be open to the possibility that we have been inadvertently insensitive.”’

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691619867117

‘Dr. D.W. Sue also recommends a “collaborative rather than an attacking tone.”’

Source p. 159: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Microintervention+Strategies%3A+What+You+Can+Do+to+Disarm+and+Dismantle+Individual+and+Systemic+Racism+and+Bias-p-9781119769989 Steveok1 (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure. You might consider adding (after section 4) a short section with those 3 quotes about the search for common ground. NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Microaggressions in medicine and health care/clinical medicine

Hi guys, I'm doing a project for a class where me and my group will be adding and contributing to an article on Wikipedia, and we've chosen this article, and I was thinking about adding a section about Microaggressions in health care, clinical medicine, or just the medical community in general. What do you guys think about that? LilliBaldner (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)LilliBaldner

What sources do you have? NightHeron (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is an article on microaggression in healthcare: Wittkower, L. David, Jennifer L. Bryan, and Ali A. Asghar-Ali. "A Scoping Review of Recommendations and Training to Respond to Patient Microaggressions." Academic Psychiatry (2021): 1-13. Pete unseth (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That source is fine, but notice that it is specifically about microaggressions by patients directed against health care providers who are people of color. You need more sources if you want a broad new section about "microaggressions in health care" or in "the medical community in general". NightHeron (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I found some articles that could just be added into each of the sections, rather than a new section altogether, like Microaggressions towards children of color when it comes to receiving medical care. This is the source I had: Houshmand, Sara, Lisa B. Spanierman, and Jack De Stefano. "“I have strong medicine, you see”: Strategic responses to racial microaggressions." Journal of Counseling Psychology66, no. 6 (2019): 651. LilliBaldner (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC).

Did you read the article? It is about how certain Canadian people of color (mainly First Nation people) respond to microaggressions. It is not about medical care. On Wikipedia a cited source must specifically say what's in the sentence it's being cited to support. NightHeron (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Pictures added to the article

I feel like there's a need for pictures on this article, it's visually very bland, and I think if there were pictures added it would become more interactive, and easy to understand. If I were to add pictures, would you guys have any suggestions of what specifically should be added?LilliBaldner (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Another type of microaggression

When neighbors ask what you're doing on your own street, implying that you don't look like the kind of person who should live there, that should count as a microaggression. It especially hurts when they withhold their names and don't respond when you give yours. DorothyPugh (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, DorothyPugh, I am Peaceray. Do you have a citation that illustrates this type of microaggression? We need verification from a reliable source to add it to the article. Peaceray (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice 74252

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 19 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Milesmorales2001 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ajb321, KoolKat1031.

— Assignment last updated by Patrickgleason6 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)