Talk:Microaggression

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Missouri,_Columbia/Understanding_Intersectionality_(Spring_2022) | assignments = LilliBaldner, Caelenmw | reviewers = Oskeans, CKRRKQ | start_date = 2022-01-19 | end_date = 2022-05-04 }}

The article in its present form uses the word "harm" repeatedly. I believe that in some of the contexts within this article, the word "harm" conveys more strength and suggests more damage than is warranted. I have changed some of these to "offended", but editor NightHeron prefers the word "harm". NightHeron pointed to WP:BRD as rationale. Within that, I thought that "What BRD is not" supported my view. So, I look to the community of editors. Many have complained that Wikipedia editors are becoming more hostile. I want to resist that, so I defer to the broader community on this point. Amicably, Pete unseth (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

:"{{tq|Offended}}" is certainly not the word to use here. What do the RS say? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

::I completely agree that the word offended doesn't seem to fit, it seems to 'make light' of the situation or topic comparatively. Words like harm, hurt, trauma, or even wounding give a sense of urgency towards the topic. ~~~~ Doyediran22 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of great topics in this field. I added "political psychology" and "truthiness", but if "Other (philosophy)" article isn't there, I'd add that too.

Someone reverted my addition; the connection is fairly clear right? MAgg. is a phenomenon relevant to political psychology, as MAs can reflect & reinforce power dynamics and societal biases that are central to political discourse and outcomes. Microaggressions are part of political psychology research.

Likewise, assessments of MAs both alleged and real are the subjective experience of humans; hence the truthiness; not everyone experiences it the same way, and it's not an objective phenomena, it's a socially-mediated one. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:This view of what topics should be linked to this article is very broad and expansive. I agree with the editor that had deleted some links to other articles, some of these are not linked closely enough to warrant a link. This is not to be taken as an insult or rebuke, but only a gentle disagreement. Let's interact kindly. Pete unseth (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::I apologize if my edit came off as offended. Non verbal and tonal communcation is lost on the internet.

::I guess my idea of see also is more broad; I personally like being able to go down the wiki rabbit hole thru see also's.

::If I may ask, what would be sufficient relatedness in your guys defintion? AnExtraEditor (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I suggest that adding broader content be preceded by asking if the topic is directly related to the theory of microaggressions, or is it merely related to a topic that is related to microaggression theory? There will never be total unanimity, but we can gently interact with each other. How about acts of macrokindness? Pete unseth (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)