User talk:100.8.110.215

I agree that this page on Critical vocabulary should be deleted (as the author). It is a wholly created definition of a very commonly used phrase in Academia. I created it because, after researching numerous articles (JSTOR and other legitimate source) which used the term, it became clear to me that the meaning of the phrase was more than the simple sum of its parts. However, upon further reflection, I believe what I have written here may be more useful in a dictionary source or an english phrasebook. What I wrote was a back-formation of a definition from numerous examples of its usage, not an existing, citable definition in a source. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has any methodology or format for cases like this. Perhaps it is not within Wikipedia's purview.

I am clearly not an experienced wiki contributor, but as for notability or importance of the term, it is one that is used with such frequency in academic discourse (esp. article titles in published peer reviewed journals) that it is unusual that it has no definition anywhere. Moreover, every professor who works with grad students addresses the student's acquisition of their discipline's unique critical vocabulary, whether they do this explicitly or not, consciously or not. But perhaps this does not rise to the level of importance or notability that Wikipedia requires.100.8.110.215 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC) David Neuschulz