Talk:Microaggression/Archive 2

"NPOV dispute lead/introduction section"
The entire second paragraph of this section (and therefore the article) appears to be a detailing arguments criticizing the theory and speculating on the potential social impact acceptance of it, rather than an explanation of the theory itself. While the inclusion of this information in the article under another section is appropriate, its inclusion in the lead section is unbalanced and constitutes bias. The critical arguments are presented in much more detail then the rest of the lead material and constitute half the lead. Other arguments, of any perspective, are not given similar treatment in the lead (and the arguments featured are not the most prominent against the theory, as guidelines call for). Taken as a whole, it presents a negative POV, and thus violates the guidelines.TheCormac (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this section is attempting to summarize issues made in more detail in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. If you have more specific suggestions for changes, than feel free to make them here or change the article (but be prepared for possible reversions if others disagree if you start with changing the article). While improvements could certainly be made to the lead, I don't think the NPOV tag is appropriate here. -Pengortm (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-worked the introduction. It still mentions that the notion is the object of controversy, but there's no need to say more in the intro. It is not appropriate to have a full paragraph of criticism before a proper definition of the term has even been offered, especially in the form it took here. Otherwise it does lead to neutrality issues. Whether that was intentional or not, it certainly did read like an attempt to present the notion under a mostly negative light. That being said, the intro is still missing a good and overarching definition of microagression (if there is a consensual one that is available). --Soirhiver (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, criticism of the political uses of the notion are non-essential, and as such they do not have their place in the lead, before a definition of the term has even been offered. Presenting them as if they were supposed to be the main takeaway from the article does raise neutrality issues. --Soirhiver (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD. The passages in question are summarizing prominent controversies. If you want a more clear definition of microagression in the lead or think more should be included in the lead, than I suggest you add that, but those things not being there is not a good reason to exclude the prominent controversies. -Pengortm (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Effects of microaggressions vs. effects of idea of microaggression
I moved the "culture of victimhood" subsection under the section "criticisms" from the section "Effects". I agree that, ideally, the "culture of victimhood" effect can be scientifically studied as a phenomenon, rather than merely being an argument in a cultural debate. Based on this logic, it shouldn't be listed under "criticisms". However, I think it's important that the article be clear when it is talking about the effects of microaggressions as opposed to when it is talking about the effects of the discourse or idea of microaggressions. The current structure mixes these together. I welcome other editors to resolve this issue, as I'm out of my area of expertise and I already spend too much time on Wikipedia. :^) Daask (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Not sure the best way to resolve it either--but open to suggestions and will put some thought into it. Thanks for engaging in the discussion here and for your work which has helped improve the article.-Pengortm (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * With a little more thought I've moved that to the criticism section (i.e. reverted my revert of Daask's edit). I still hope we can work to better integrate criticisms into the article, but until that is done, this seems like the best solution.-Pengortm (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Pengortm
I am aware that the question of balance in this article has been discussed. I have read this page, where several different people object to the appearance of bias in the article.

It seems as if you, as an individual, insist it should remain with all that others have objections about. I appealed to have the apparent conflict moderated before making an edit of my own. I am a newbie to all this though, so maybe I missed a response or did not wait long enough for one. Alienkind (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am insisting that wikipedia standards be followed. As previously stated multiple times, according to wiki standards, criticisms are supposed to be integrated throughout the article, and if substantive enough included in the lead. If you think content should be excluded for other reasons, than by all means let's have that discussion. -Pengortm (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My edits did not exclude anything. One was moving the "culture of victimhood" section from Effects to Criticism, which is the same that Daask did later. It looks like you reverted that edit once again, but then offered thanks for improving the article?

My other edit was to move the second paragraph of the lead to Criticism, as well. The paragraph calls "the microagression concept" a "tactic" and goes on to claim it is detrimental to free speech and social interaction in regard to race. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition, as well as a discussion page on it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microaggression https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/microaggression-words-were-watching

There is no indication of the criticism contained in the second paragraph of the article here, at all. I think this suggests the criticisms are less substantive than you apparently believe. Alienkind (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Daask had additional edits which were clearly productive that I was thanking them for. After productive discussion (see below) Daask has convinced me that "culture of victimhood" section is best in criticisms section until we can figure out how to better integrate it into the article. Again, the lead is supposed to summarize the article--including criticisms. Looks like the Merriam-Webster link might have some good information in it to add to the article--if so, please add in (or if you want to discuss how best to, we can discuss here). The fact that Merriam-Webster does not include the criticisms does not mean that wikipedia should not--we are not constrained by what Merriam-Webster does. -Pengortm (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microaggression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aIH7xO4w0AoJ:studenthealth.emory.edu/hp/documents/pdfs/Racial%2520Microaggressions%2520and%2520College%2520Student%2520Wellbeing.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20161014170818/http://studenthealth.emory.edu/hp/documents/pdfs/Racial%20Microaggressions%20and%20College%20Student%20Wellbeing.pdf on http://studenthealth.emory.edu/hp/documents/pdfs/Racial%20Microaggressions%20and%20College%20Student%20Wellbeing.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Aggressions on campuses
The section on campuses does not include college students shouting obscenities at faculty and preventing them from engaging in dialogue (e.g. Evergreen State College). Is there any reason those actions should not be included here? Pete unseth (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In what way were microaggressions involved with these events? --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ChiveFungi asked in what way microagression were invovled at campus protests. When, for example, students at Evergreen State College shouted obscenities at a teacher, would that be considered (by some) microagression, or should it be considered something stronger? Or what? I'm still trying to understand by what criteria actions are labeled "microagressions". Pete unseth (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Shouted obscenities? Absolutely not. It needs to be a "casual degradation of any marginalized group" (shouting is not casual -in this sense of the word) and "generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture" (I'm pretty sure shouted obscenities would be noticed by the dominant culture). --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It'd probably be easier for Pete to understand what constitutes a microaggression if there were a page on Wikipedia concisely and smartly describing them. Alas, I could only find a "Criticisms of Microaggression theory, mostly by contrarian pundits with no relevant qualifications" page. --98.254.202.225 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article did have some good aspects to it and did contain some good information. One of the first things I noticed was that the introduction, although it did a good job covering all the article states, it was very scattered in doing so and did not flow very well. Another part of the flow that distracted me was under the "description" section in which it discussed the eight distinct themes of racial aggression. I felt that these themes would have better been addressed under the race and ethnicity section. I also felt that discussing the three forms of microaggression under the race and ethnicity section did not flow as well as if those three forms were listed under the description section in order to fully describe what microaggression is and the various types. Lastly, one of the areas in which I believed it was underdeveloped was under the perpetrators section simply because there seemed to be little information and very vague in its nature. Buss.emma (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Class Evaluations
The neutrality of the section titled "Perpetrators" is not as clear. Seemed to be biased toward microagression being "harmless". Could be phrased with more specific examples than to just say that 'perpetrators are generally well meaning' to help out with this! Talliejean (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Considering the implications Microaggressions can have on the targeted group, it is dificult to use very neutral examples without showing negative bias towards a particular group. I thought this article did very well using a very general definition of what microaggression is without isolating or attacking a particular group.

Waterstr.drew (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Concept clarification?
It seems that many of the disagreements about the inclusion of certain criticisms where this content should belong on the page comes from not having consensuses on the definition of micro aggression. I would suggest clarifying the term. Specifying that micro aggregations are "subjectively offensive remarks" broadens the definition and allows for more criticism and viewpoints to be included with the wiki. Referring to Micro aggressions as subjectively offensive remarks is not incorrect but merely another way of phrasing the term. GerlachBP (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think your definition agrees with major authors in this field. We don't have the luxury of deciding what is "correct" or more conceptually precise, but must summarize existing scholarship. Daask (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would citing this definition for scholarly literature give it merit for use in this article? GerlachBP (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, reliable sources are expected for all contributions to Wikipedia. The only thing turned up by my quick search for "subjectively offensive microagression" was an article that rejected the utility of the concept of microaggressions for institutional policies and urged restrictions only on objectively offensive speech. Please sign your talk page messages like this:   Daask (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
I feel that some of the headers should be fleshed out a little bit more. For example the header “Distraction from more serious offenses” seems to be slightly one sided. As there is not much research in this field of study the lack of a variety of perspectives is not unheard of, but a bias towards certain ideas can be seen under some of the smaller headings: “Distraction from more serious offenses” ,“College campuses ” ,“People with mental illnesses”. The writing is unbias, but the fact that only one side of the story is being told makes it hard to get a full understanding of everything being discussed especially because most of this is anecdotal, like the “People with mental illnesses” header. Casey McHugh (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced
As has been said, the inclusion of criticism under the main section renders the point of view non-neutral immediately and attempt to dismiss the concept described in the article. The second paragraph, if it offered some support of the idea, would be a reasonable inclusion. No support for the idea is offered at any point, but numerous critics (who are not social psychologists or sociologists) are given undue weight. Many studies exist documenting the effect, and are included as references. These are never used as responses to criticism, as is common in other Criticisms sections. 2601:8C0:4101:937:E970:D36F:F9B7:B8C5 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, this article is already unbalanced in the lede. The lede should explain what a microaggression is. Discussions of what critics say belongs under "Criticism." 73.218.186.141 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD. The passages in question are summarizing prominent controversies. If you want a more clear definition of microagression in the lead or think more should be included in the lead, than I suggest you add that, but those things not being there is not a good reason to exclude the prominent controversies. I also note that I have added more of a definition of microagression to the lead, while those who are complaining about this seem not to have bothered. Further, it is best practice on wikipedia not try to integrate criticisms into articles, not isolate them in criticisms sections. -Pengortm (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not having responded sooner: the reason I (and perhaps others who were "complaining") did not "bother" to add a definition was because we came here looking for a definition. That is how some people use Wikipedia. 73.218.186.141 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias?
This article is, ironically, fully of microagressions. It seems to have been heavily edited by someone dismissive of the idea. For example, the section about "College Campuses" is entirely a dismissal of the phenomenon, without a counterbalancing argument. This is one of many such instances. The article needs substantial revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EF:1800:525:A449:3D62:B3C4 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but this "theory" doesn't exist anywhere outside of college campuses. Try to pull this stuff off in the workplace (ie. the "real world") and see how fast your butt gets canned. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With due respect, this attitude does not jive with the reality experienced by many marginalized groups. No matter what your workplace may be, microaggressions are real. They also do not often happen to those with privilege. I mean no disrespect and simply would ask that you respect the experiences of people different from you. Mbkg1002 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Mbkg1002


 * A "Microaggression" is not "....the casual degradation of any marginalized group....". It is a term wholly contrived by the "Loony Left" in order to taint any facet of the "Mainstream" that they deem objectionable, in order to prosecute their relentless "bashing" of it until such time as their own warped views hold sway.
 * The whole article is totally biased, and was clearly written by a "Leftist Activist". The only good thing I can see about is is that it includes a link to "victim mentality" in the "See Also" section.

81.99.236.225 (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a significant amount of criticism from well-respected academics (e.g., Haidt, Sommers, Paglia) of the theory and their concerns point to evidentiary shortcomings in particular. Since the very existence of "microaggressions" (under its contemporary definition) is robustly contested, the opposing view is integral to a fair article. Lukacris (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Classic insensitive question
"Where are you from?" is maybe not the best example, because it can be innocent in many contexts. The really annoying one is apparently "No, where are you really from?" -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The paper referenced for that quote does also include the wording “So where are you really from?” if you want to replace the example and keep the reference.Dialectric (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Can't nearly any microaggression be "innocent in many contexts"? Maybe it's good to use the original example in order to show just that. Lukacris (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I would strongly disagree -- that might encourage such behavior as jumping down people's throats and accusing them of trying to paint you as a foreigner when they were actually intending to ask you which state of the U.S. you were from (the kind of thing that is guaranteed to stir up the interminable semi-pointless turmoil and disputes which have already discredited the whole concept of microaggressions in the eyes of many). When something is presented as an example without any surrounding situational context, then it needs to be a clear example.
 * Anyway, when the intent is really aggressive, it's often pretty unambiguous (see this bravura performance by Trump). I don't think we want to inadvertently encourage hair-trigger responses to ambiguous cases... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Two things: (1) Microaggressions (seem to be) defined by the subjective experience of the microaggressed, not the subjective intent of the microaggressor or some objective reasonableness standard. So I think a concern for intent is misplaced. Admittedly, it's not clear to me how this bears your original suggestion to the article. (2) It's not Wikipedia's concern whether the article encourages a particular behavior or opinion of its readers. The goal is do describe, not proscribe. The question, then, is whether the article's presentation is accurate and not whether the description has a desirable effect as a normative matter. Lukacris (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Saying that microaggressions are "defined by the subjective experience" of the experiencer means that they're purely impressionistic (no different in status from a free association daydream), and that facts and evidence (and anything and everything else in the external world) are totally irrelevant. Is that really the path that we/you want to go down?  And it's true that Wikipedia doesn't really shape its articles to advance social goals, but that cuts both ways -- I see hairtrigger responses to ambiguous stimuli as a major problem in microaggression controversies, and want to disassociate any examples given in the article from that, while you perhaps revel in such ambiguity, but neither is really a valid reason on its own for editing the Wikipedia article.  However, my goal is also to make sure that examples given in the article are as clear as possible as they're presented (i.e. "Where are you from?" can be a clear example in a given situational context, but presented without any context it's not too clear, and so is a poor example for the article).  This not the same as avoiding hairtrigger responses to ambiguous stimuli (though somewhat related), and IS a valid reason for editing the Wikipedia article. AnonMoos (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't our place to frame our subject in the light we prefer (for whatever reason). Seeing as we're both sensible people, I'm sure we agree about the questionable veracity and normative problems of asserting the existence of a phenomenon proved only by self-report. But it's just not for us to say (critics cited in the article like Prof. Haidt seem to give ample voice to this view). That being said, there's nothing wrong with your edit per se, but the reasons you give are misplaced. Lukacris (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I marked this page as "unbalanced" because I clicked this article looking for helpful information about microaggressions as a concept and was inundated by loads of criticism of "coddling young people," etc. I really think that the whole right-wing critique of college campuses, trigger warnings, etc, is at best tangentially related to the concept of microaggressions. To be honest, I think the entire second paragraph of this article could be removed. Why should the article start off with a whole paragraph about how the topic victimizes white people? I have done quite a lot of research and work around microaggressions and I'd never heard of any of these theories about the potential disastrous results of microaggression theory's "implementation." Let's not make the topic seem more controversial than it really is. As it stands, the article is really incredibly biased against the theory and I really hope no one removes my tag without cleaning this article up first. Here's an easy fix: move most if not all of the criticism to the CRITICISM SECTION. as it is, there's criticism spread liberally throughout the article, to the point where there's no point of even having a criticism section. 131.229.61.92 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do add additional reliable sources and work together with us to improve the article. If you have reliable sources stating that these criticisms which are included are fringe views (they don't appear to be to me) than please do include these and we can discuss further--but frankly your expert opinion does not matter. Wikipedia is based on quoting reliable sources. I do note that while there is no consensus or universal wiki rule, there does seem to be general opinion of wiki editors that it is better to integrate criticisms throughout articles -see WP:CRIT-Pengortm (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:LEAD. Including summaries of criticisms in the lead is consistent with wikipedia policy. -Pengortm (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is far from perfect, but the tag appears to be based on a mis-understanding of WP:NPOV. I agree with most of Pengortm's comments and have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microaggression_theory&type=revision&diff=726317305&oldid=726240501 removed] the tag.  One point I would make is that experts are valuable to Wikipedia, it's just that we can't take any individual's opinion that they are an expert on face value.  That is why we like to look at sources.  Yaris678 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree with you about experts being valuable to wikipedia and appreciate you making that point clear. -Pengortm (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous posters that this article seems to present an unbalanced view of the topic. The Lilienfeld 2017 article is represented throughout this wikipedia entry as discrediting the entire microaggression concept. However, I read the article myself and the author insists early on in the article that microaggressions do indeed exist and that the microaggression concept should be encouraged to evolve with a heavier emphasis on empirical data rather than just be straight tossed out. Seems like deliberate misrepresentation based on the obvious context being left out? Either way, this should warrant a more thorough inspection of the quality of the criticism throughout the article, which already seems suspect. Shoontpear (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections tend to subvert our collective goal of maintaining a neutral point of view. See also WP:CRITS. —Ringbang (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Intentionality
Should there not be some discussion of a requisite intentionality for an act to constitute a microagression? The “-aggression” part of the word would seem to suggest that some degree of intention is required on the part of the doer for it to qualify as a microaggression. Thanks! — Spike  Toronto  05:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The article states twice that microaggressions can be unintentional. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the lede to make the article clearer. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * By it's very definition, "aggression" requires intent. Thus it seems reasonable to ask why are we promoting illogical patterns of thought which reduce everything to a self-referential perspective? Life is not a solipsism, so should we not be adding a megaphone to the voices of those who want it to be. Xerton (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as you cannot break down "homophobia" into its constituent parts and claim that it actually means "fear of gay people" and not hatred of gay people, nor can you claim that because aggression requires intent that microaggressions also require intent. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite common and normal to be unintentionally aggressive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you are completely wrong. One can be intrusive inadvertently (and therefore, unintentionally), but aggression by definition, requires intent. Please read the definition of aggress . For an action to be "aggressive" the actor taking the action must "aggress". But if one does something which appears to "aggress" and yet is done inadvertently, it's not intentionally and it's therefore not agressive. It's rude, boorish, mean, stupid, inconsiderate, oafish, etc., but not aggressive. In peacetime, aggression is inherently unjust and therefore, it requires mens rea. Xerton (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agression is an attitude that can be unconscious. Your personal definitioning is irrelevant, since the literature explicitly states that microagressions do not require intent. The random definition you link to by the way states nothing about intent.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Xerton is 100% correct. "micro-" is a prefix that means "extremely small", but the word "aggression" indeed requires intent. Using a physical analogy, if you bump somebody on an elevator, it is an "accident", but if you deliberately poke someone lightly on the shoulder while speaking to them, it is intentionally aggressive, even though it is not like a punch in the nose. Verbally, if you innocently ask an east Asian what part of China he is from, and he's Korean, that is just a thoughtless mistake, but if you ask him if he can play "Chopsticks" on the piano, that is a deliberately impolite joke, and is therefore an aggression. Essentially, "microaggression" is a fake word made up by people who have a vested interest in complaining, and since overt racism is illegal in many places, and can get a person fired at the least, these people are using magnifying glasses to look for something to be offended about. If one admits that it is a bogus term invented by professional "victims", then one can cite these radical activists as "reliable sources", because it is their own made-up jargon. But if one is trying to be objective, then one cannot pretend that "microaggression" is a real word with neutral definition. It is a loaded term used only by activists with political axes to grind. (Side note: it is a little odd that almost every example given is about Asian Americans, given that it is so rare to see Asian Americans using the concept of "microaggressions" as an excuse to feel "victimized". Constantly accusing people of European ancestry of "microaggressions" is itself a race-based microaggression. In the real world, behaviour is either aggressive or it isn't. The prefix "micro-" is just a fad, like mindlessly adding "-ality" to the end of words to make them sound more academic.77Mike77 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I found two psychology texts that do include intent in the definition, so apparently in social psychology that is a part of the definition, although I don't think it is in ordinary language. Nevertheless, the article should not include discussion of intent unless there is such a discussion in the literature on microaggresions - since this is the literature this article must summarize.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Reading up a bit it seems to me that the literature on microagressions does include prominently discussions of intent: Specifically it seems that the question of intent, and the degree to which intent is obvious or can be denied by the aggressor, is used to distinguish between microaggresions and microassault. It is also stated in several texts I saw that precisely the low intensity of the aggression makes it very hard to establish intent because even when it is present and experienced by the recipient, the agressor may deny intent or shift the focus to the recipient being sensitive. I also found one text that critiqued the fact that intent was not required under the definition of microaggresions, because of the implications for determination of guilt and due process. This should probably all be discussed in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting somewhere. It's absolutely true that aggression requires one to "aggress" (see my dictionary link above). But having said that, provided we make clear that the term "microaggression" is more of a common-use construct naming convention which incorporates a looser understanding of what is aggression, then I think we'd be correctly informing people. Personally, I think the word is sloppy English which was deliberately chosen by social justice advocates to cast the frowned-upon activity in a pejorative light. And for social justice advocacy reasons, it's a shrewd naming convention. But for accuracy of understanding, muddying the waters in regards to intent is a bad idea because it muddies the waters in regard to personal responsibility. If we allow that aggression doesn't require intent, then those engaging in it can more easily escape personal responsibility by claiming "it was unintentional, I didn't mean it, I'm sorry".  The attitude of the bully is one of entitlement and smug superiority, but that attitude is carried around on purpose, not by accident. If we lose sight of intentions, we let cheaters, bullies and trouble-makers off the hook. Xerton (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing we need to do is to read the literature on microaggressions and summarize it. This literature does establishes 1. that the definition of microagressions does not include intent, 2. that some think this is a problem because it does not allow for following the usual legal principles in investigating and sanctioning microaggressions, 3. that microaggresions are focused on the experience of harm, rather than harmful intent, exactly because microaggresions are so inconspicuous that any harmful intent can be easily denied and cannot be conclusively proved - but the harm experienced is real regardless of whether the intent can be established. AND no it is not "absolutely true" that aggressionre quires intent, because even the two social psychology texts mention that not all definitions of agression have required intent, and the dictionary link you provided shows no such thing either. It is apparently true however that the most commonly used definition in social psychology, includes intent - and instead defines unintentional "agression" as "assertiveness". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While you make interesting points which may well be correct and important, this is sounding more like original research and synthesis that you are working through here in the talk pages. This is not really what wikipedia or talk pages are about. Wikipedia is not about us doing independent research, but reflecting current well sourced views on topics. I'd suggest reading the relevant literature more and finding elements of the article that need correction based on sourced ideas which are not currently properly represented. Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It only sounds like WP:OR to you because you're not thinking it through to the end. And if you're going to parse the meaning of aggression by a particular standard, then you'll need to make sure that standard is referenced via citation here. Had you read all my posts here (see above), you'd see that I've referenced the dictionary for the word "aggress" and I've laid out a step-by-step explanation which shows I'm correctly applying that dictionary definition as my premise. To counter it, you are obligated to show why my explanation is wrong, not just call it original research. Xerton (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No you are obliged to show that reliable sources about the topic (microagression - not aggression) support your argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this article must clarify any confusion which exists or which we introduce into a subject matter. And by not making clear that the common usage of the term microagression does not hew with fidelity to the meaning of the words which compose it, we are publishing non-encyclopedic information. Xerton (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

These citations prove that by definition aggression is intentional
Please read these: Here, here and here. Also, please take note that Aggression also says "Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual. It may occur either in retaliation or without provocation. In humans, frustration due to blocked goals can cause aggression. Human aggression can be classified into direct and indirect aggression, whilst the first is characterized by physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm to someone, the second one is characterized by a behavior intended to harm social relations of an individual or a group." Xerton (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant. As already explained to you, we go by what reliable sources say. You're doing original research. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is irrelevant because it is not about microaggressions, but about a different related concept. We require sources that specifically discuss the relation between the definition of microagressions, and intent. And they do exist.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only irrelevant if you want to propagate a deliberately confusing amalgam of terms. That said, I'll see what other sources I can find that will satisfy this talk page's clamor to overlook the actual meaning of the word "aggression". Xerton (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Read this link then think about what's being propagated by advancing a sloppy article about a sloppy term. The very term "microaggression" used as it commonly is, devalues personal responsibility and significantly changes meaning. And that's why we need to make sure that the word "aggression" is explained in this article; if only to make clear that "microaggression", by incorporating "aggression" but in omitting a requirement for intent, is a major fork in the meaning of the word "aggression". And it's not WP:OR to point out the obvious fact that this intention-less application is an entirely new way of using the term aggress/aggression, so much so that the meaning is changed. And it's that change of meaning which I feel should be noted in the article. We do our readers no favor if we omit the obvious etymological fork taking place here.Xerton (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confused about what Wikipedia is and what our job is. We don't propagate anything. We describe topics by summarizing the relevant literature. It is exactly what OR is to try to put a topic into a light tht is not found in the relevant literature, based on our own readings of other bodies of literature that may or may not be indirectly related to the topic described. We understand that you think the concept is wrongheaded, but unless you can cite published litterature that says so as well (it exists) then there is no point in continueing this conversation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please retract your suggestion that I am confused; it certainly is a Microaggression to say that to me - and it's is unfair on its face. I have been very collaborative towards vetting my thinking by sharing on this page - and thereby avoid making non-consensus edits to this article. Thus, I do not appreciate your ad hominem comment about my lucidity (or lack thereof). And if you want to quit dialoging, that's on you, not me. Xerton (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Text
The last paragraph in the Description section has the exact same sentence from the last paragraph under the Race and Ethnicity heading. I think the criticism is a good thing to include in the article, however it doesn't need to be stated multiple times. I also think that some of the small sections such as Ageism and Intolerance or Intersectionality could either be combined into one idea that encompasses many of these areas, erased all together, or lengthened. The sections appear too small to gain any real insight from. Rather it seems as if they are just scratching the surface of these subjects. MorganBergeron (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There are also three separate sections that discuss the 2017 Lilienfeld paper (cite 13.) It certainly is provocative, published and peer-reviewed -- but it's only one paper. Does it really need discussion in three separate parts of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4400:DF50:A1DB:73DE:BD7A:A605 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Critiques of the idea in the lead
It seems like we should be aiming to have some critiques of this idea in the lead. Not sure how to do this yet, but I'll try to work something fair up at some point unless someone else hopefully beats me to it. Pengortm (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Why? What is this even a response to? What other articles have long descriptions of criticisms of their concepts in the opening paragraphs?
 * What I'm assuming is your addition just makes this article appear biased against the theory from the beginning. Nice job I guess. 131.229.61.92 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See below section for additional reply. In short, my reading of the literature is that there is considerable skepticism of the theory from reliable sources. I've made an attempt at incorporating this. -Pengortm (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems like several people have argued that the second paragraph should go, but one or two people are intent on keeping it. In line with wikipedia procedures, I think the best thing to do at this point is to open a request for comment. Drcchutch (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Pengortm, enough
You've spent two years vandalizing this article with non-authoritative critics. The sources you cite for the paragraph you keep trying to add to the lead section are all people who personally benefit from the idea that there are no such thing as microaggressions. They do not belong in the header of the article. We don't put flat-earther criticisms in the lead section for Earth; we don't need similarly biased, non-authoritative sources in the lead section for Microaggression. It's time to drop it. Etherjammer (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that in Wiki land here vanadalism has a rather specific meaning. See WP:VD -Pengortm (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential canvassing
This article was recently the subject of external discussion on social media and a call for assistance for a particular point of view. See https://anticapitalist.party/@toothbrushbandit/100349608005302248 and http://archive.is/uqXjM 222.152.76.54 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces
I feel it's important to make a clear-cut distinction between opinion / social commentary pieces and scientific studies. Even if it is by a psychologist, an opinion piece doesn't have the same weight as a proper peer-reviewed paper; it needs to be clearly presented as a specific person's opinion rather than as fact - the "social consequences" section sort of mixed them all in together without indications of what was what. For now I've separated out a 'reactions' section to put opinion pieces and other personal responses from individuals assessing the term. I'm particularly concerned about the Atlantic article, which was cited over and over again in terms that sometimes made it unclear what it was - we probably devote WP:UNDUE weight to that one, but for now I've left everything in, just confined to one reaction paragraph. Also, I've broken up the old "scientific status" section (after all, the entire article, outside of what's now consigned to the reactions section, is about the science behind it, so that section made no sense.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Further reading for neutrality
I just added a bunch of articles to the further reading section. I offer some of them here which other editors may find helpful in offsetting perceived biases in this article. I have only skimmed most of these. Feel free to edit this section.

The article I'd most like to read but can't get access to is this: Please let me know if you can share it with me. Daask (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Moderate approaches
Perhaps a more moderate approach acknowledging benefits and critiques of microaggression discourse.

Response to further reading section
Thank you for your work here. Please note that the Further reading section is supposed to conform to certain standards as outlined in the the link in this sentence. Glancing at it, it looks out of whack with this. Please take a look and adjust as needed. -Pengortm (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? It seemed fine to me.  A bit on the long side, but it's a complicated topic. --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your careful work editing this page. The number of sources seemed unreasonably high. As well, many of the sources are included in the article. Of course, a carefully curated selective group of further reading makes perfect sense, but this list was, I think, more meant as a an unselected or screened list for editors to consult and possibly mine for content--not really what a further reading section is supposed to be based on my reading of other articles and Further reading. -Pengortm (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying definition
As the article reads now, a microagression can only be done to a person in a marginalized category. Aside from the impossibility of defining such a category in a way that would satisfy at least 66% of Wikipedia editors, is it truly claimed that non-marginalized people cannot be the targets of microagression? Trying to clarify definition. Pete unseth (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

New source to consider on eye contact and microagressions
Inspired by the recent edit that I just reverted I did a little poking around and came across these sources which I think should be added in. I don't have time to add them now so noting them here in case someone else wants to beat me to it or comment on it in the meantime. I couldn't find anything on the Korean examples suggested by the recent unsourced edit. -Pengortm (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39742670 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/29/oxford-university-apologises-everyday-racism-advice-offended/ https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-microaggressions-71364
 * Just gave a stab at integrating it-Pengortm (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing, WP:SYNTH and criticism sections
This article has some issues in recent edits with an over dependence on primary sources and editors synthesizing from these results WP:SYNTH. Per wikipedia policies and norms, we should be giving secondary sources from reliable sources (especially peer reviewed reviews) prominence over primary sources and our personal interpretations of these results. See WP:PSTS and WP:BIOSOURCES. As well, as noted on this talk page before and by previous editors, criticisms are generally best integrated into the article, not relegated to separate sections (see WP:CRIT) -Pengortm (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Marginalization?
This article seems to revolve around the concept of marginalization - microaggression being something that can only be suffered by marginalized groups, and yet there is no definition of what marginalization is and how (or by whom) it is defined. Recently there's been a number of news articles about Colorado's decision to renew its persecution of that Masterpiece Bakery guy because of his faith despite SCOTUS' ruling. Would that government animosity constitute marginalization? The concept of religious marginalization exists in the literature - there's a new article out about microaggressions unique to Atheists, however most of the microaggressions listed are only unique because of the specific phrasing used and could easily be adapted for other groups e.g. that of the baker. Anyone see how this problem can be resolved? 人族 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on bias, especially in the second paragraph
Should the second paragraph of the article be removed? Drcchutch (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the second paragraph in question: "The concept is frequently promoted by those seeking to challenge racism and social discrimination. However, a number of scholars and social commentators, including Heather Mac Donald, Amitai Etzioni, Jonathan Haidt, Greg Lukianoff, Jason Manning, Ralph Nader, and Christina Hoff Sommers, have critiqued the concept of microagressions on various grounds including that it is scientifically not well substantiated and may be harmful to both individuals and society. The concept of perceived microaggression has also been described as part of victimhood culture and "a larger class of conflict tactics in which the aggrieved seek to attract and mobilize the support of third parties.""


 * Please see note in below section showing organized Canvasing from outside of wikipedia. Regardless, I welcome constructive suggestions/edits to improve the article. -Pengortm (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Remove. See above and below for my comments. Etherjammer (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

"A number of scholars and social commentators have critiqued the microaggression concept on various grounds including that it is scientifically not well substantiated, overly dependent on anecdotal evidence, and assumes that slights are due to bias without sufficient evidence. Some of these critics suggest that the concept is not well developed enough to be applied in the real-world and that its current applications may be harmful to individuals and society."  -Pengortm (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep . update: Rewrite, but Keep until new consensus. First, I note that according to wikipedia policies, this RfC should not have been opened. "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Regardless, happy to have more eyes on this--but not sure if this is the best use of the RfC mechanism. I have discussed this paragraph with other editors over the years above on the talk page. The second paragraph accurately summarizes the article. If there are problems with the body of the article than go ahead and try to repair them. However, my evaluation of the situation is that the scholars and commentators cited do have relevant expertise and that these critiques are prominent enough that they should be both included in the article and the lead. I think this discussion would be better if we focused on alleged problems with specific sources in the body of the article. -Pengortm (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC). update: Thanks for the productive discussion. I certainly can see that this paragraph could be improved and welcome this work and further discussions. I see the point Edaham makes about the first clause and am leaning on taking it out until we get clearer sourcing in the body of the article for this (shouldn't be too difficult). Also consistent with Edaham's point, I would lean towards explaining the critiques in a bit more detail over listing all of the people making the critiques. I disagree with Mr. Guye in that, consistent with best practices, we have tried to integrate in criticisms throughout the article rather than isolating to one distinct section and the lead should summarize the article--which includes considerable critiques. I suggest the following re-write to the second paragraph for now:


 * You've been re-adding your contrarian views to the article for two full years without being swayed the tiniest bit by arguments against your behavior, according to this talk page. You obviously aren't interested in coming to a consensus that isn't just everybody agreeing with you. The RfC is absolutely appropriate. Etherjammer (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please be civil? Not being convinced is not a policy violation.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep If a significant group of field leaders including one of the foremost social psychologists in the world (Haidt) contest the very existence of microaggressions, then their view deserves a prominent position in the article. This ain't complicated. Lukacris (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC) ADD: I'd also suggest that this paragraph better reflect that their criticism isn't only about the utility of microaggressions as an idea but rather that it is not a legitimate concept to begin with. Lukacris (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove / Rewrite. There is room for some discussion in the lead on the controversy over the term, of course, but a laundry-list of op-eds combined with every critical paper people could dredge up isn't it.  None of the previous versions of this paragraph seem useful, so WP:TNT is the appropriate response here.  --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove per WP:WEASEL and WP:TMD the first clause is a glaring “by whom?” tnd the second list is name dropping overkill which if it belongs anywhere, should be in the body where the subject is more free to expand and benefit from clarification. Edaham (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and tweak if covered lower, per WP:Lead. Only a few examples are needed in the lead to keep Template:Who tags away. But like WP:Weasel words states, the lead can sometimes be vague and have the lower body go into detail. If not covered lower, then, per WP:Lead, it should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to § Criticism. (Summoned by bot) Kind of surprised that there wasn't one already. I mostly hear this term mentioned in order to mock "snowflake" culture. This is a highly controversial article. But I agree the criticism is not particularly helpful in the lead of the article.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rewrite - The lead should obviously cover this area, but it should be a summary of the article as a whole. I think this paragraph should mostly be a summary of the section "Social consequences of the concept".  If people have an issue with that section, they should discuss/improve that section, rather than focusing on the lead.  Yaris678 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rewrite, but Keep until new consensus - I've been persuaded by comments on this page that having a long list of names with minimal description of their concerns leaves the reader with a sense of an ominous cloud. I was aspiring to keep it short, and any replacement will almost certainly be longer - perhaps 3x as long. Suggestions welcome. Daask (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove or Rewrite, the fact that concept has been controversial should be in the leed but in the current form it resembles an opinated argument more than a descriptive encyclopedia entryZubin12 (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Rewrite, but Keep until new consensus - for reasons already stated in survey above. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I wrote the short version of the second paragraph myself in an effort to very briefly summarize what the article describes, which is that this is a hotly contested concept which a wide variety of people have claimed to be harmful to individuals and society. The specifics of their critiques vary and are more than the lead can adequately or appropriately describe without being WP:UNDUE.

The specific wording I currently advocate for is this: "The concept is frequently promoted by those seeking to challenge racism and oppression. However, a number of authors, including Bradley Campbell, Heather Mac Donald, Amitai Etzioni, Jonathan Haidt, Greg Lukianoff, Jason Manning, Ralph Nader, and Christina Hoff Sommers, have argued that the concept of microaggressions may be harmful to both individuals and society."

Daask (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Daask, the paragraph as written is WP:UNDUE. The authors you cite aren't authorities in the field (Ralph Nader? really?) and so you're overloading the introductory section with material that is not "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Additionally, whether microaggressions exist is not "hotly contested"; the debate is over whether they matter and should be paid attention to. As such, the paragraph doesn't belong in the header section. Etherjammer (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The issues I see with this are twofold. The first sentence is misleading. This is a concept in sociology and is not 'promoted' as such. I do question the need for that paragraph at all. When one searches for microaggression in google scholar, the first several pages of results are discussing the effects of this phenomenon on marginalised group. If it were actually controversial, surely some results disputing the concept would also appear relatively early on. There seem to be virtually no influential academic papers disputing the utility of this concept. Some of the writers listed as objectors don't work in the field. I worry this is a bit like Jeremy Corbyn's brother being a climate change denier. He's a (semi) celebrity and people list his name in an effort to pretend climate change isn't happening, but he has no credibility on the topic. Drcchutch (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that none of these figures are not experts on majority/minority relations, oppression, or social exclusion. While some of these authors do question the reality and effects of microaggressions, I am not advocating that this be brought into the lead. I'd love to see further expansion of However, the lead summarizes the article, which right now has a large section on the social consequences of the concept. I contend that most of these authors are reasonably qualified to discuss this.
 * Psychologists Lilienfeld and Haidt say the spread of the idea of microaggressions may have negative effects on perceptions and attributions of people and even cause psychological trauma, which is within the scope of a psychologist's expertise. Christina Hoff Sommers has been discussing contemporary ideologies and victim roles for a few decades now. The other authors discuss how the concept impacts contemporary civil discourse, public discourse, and culture. I'd suggest that sociologists (Campbell & Manning), political theorists (Etzioni), and even political analysts and cultural critics (perhaps all the rest) are in as good a position as anyone to discuss such things. Admittedly, I include Heather Mac Donald in that list mostly in an intentional bias to include women.
 * On my wording choices: Because the topic is the effects of the promulgation of the concept as part of the popular ideology of society, I think "promotion" is precisely what we're talking about. That is what is discussed in Campbell & Manning, which is how this promotion functions in a group. I also find "oppression" a better word than "social discrimination", because oppression is a complex analysis of a situation, whereas discrimination refers to particular acts and decisions. I think advocates of the term are responding to an analysis of a whole system of oppression. Daask (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I too have been "discussing contemporary ideologies and victim roles for a few decades now"; that doesn't make me an expert or an authority, just someone who talks a lot. Bart Sibrel has been insisting that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes for several decades; that doesn't make his position valid or him authoritative. In addition, many of these people discuss these subjects not because they're subject-matter experts but because their jobs - provided by conservative outlets and think tanks - rely on it.
 * Regardless, your paragraph reads as a sort of quasi-Gish gallop, attempting to overwhelm the reader with what you claim are authoritative sources in order to bias them against the concept. Quoting from here:
 * If a subject is worth a whole section, it deserves mention in the lead according to its real due weight.
 * The weight given in your paragraph is undue. If we must include the paragraph - and I don't believe we must - then it needs to be edited substantially to give "criticisms of microaggressions" due weight instead of the overwhelming bias it currently promotes. Etherjammer (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * An addendum: I have no problem with Campbell, Mac Donald, etc. appearing in the body of the article as critics, and I would cast similar aspersions on anyone adding popular figures who were in favor of the concept to the introductory section. Just to be clear. Etherjammer (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's true that the lede does summarise the article, which I think has problems with bias throughout. There is an over-emphasis on criticisms of the concept of microaggressions. It gives the article the appearance of an agenda to discredit the subject and is not what one would typically expect from an encyclopaedia article on this topic. This article, unfortunately, is not an accurate summary of the state of literature on this topic. Drcchutch (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with the article I would suggest making more specific suggested changes by suggesting what specifically should be removed, rephrased or added. One good way to add balance to the suggested unbalanced aspects to this article would be to find reliable sources which address these counter-points. With these changes made then we would change the lede accordingly to make it summarize this new and improved article.- Pengortm (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the structure has some problems; obviously the 'science' section makes no sense (the entire article, aside from the social section, cites scientific publications), so I broke it up and moved what I could elsewhere. We should probably also avoid citing think-tanks when better sources are available; "talking head says their opponents are to wrong and to blame for everything" is not a useful contribution, and we can find comparable cites from such think-tanks on nearly any subject. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible source for the Wikipedia article
This recent Washington Post piece is quite interesting: -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)