Talk:Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Discrimination, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	To-do list for Discrimination:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Rewrite the Langauge Discrimination section to have a neutral point of view. Replace "Citiation Needed" tags in the Religious and the Langauge discrimination sections with sources so that content can be verified. ~~Provide sources for the Language Based Discrimination section.~~ ~~Rewrite the Religious Discrimination section to have a neutral point of view.~~ ~~Add a Racial Discrimination section~~ ~~Add medical and physical ability discrimation~~

Please add new comments at the bottom of this talk page.

[edit] Example

Example: Your country is under attack during wartime. The war is so ferocious that 80% of the combatants are killed. A law has been passed to forcefully conscript males between 18-24 years of age into the frontline, furthermore females are forbidden to participate.

Question: Who is being discriminated against?

Answer: Anyone who has been singled out because of race, religion, GENDER, etc. without regard to their ability to help with your hypothetical crisis.

Human rights tend to be disregarded during war or natural disasters.

It would be more convincing to have an example in normal circumstances.

The government is discriminating against its own country, by inflicting a limit on the forces available to defend it. -- Smjg 15:12, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Historically cultures which sent their men off to war and kept the women safer have endured and tended to dominate for simple biological reasons. One surviving man can impregnate many women but each woman can only manage to bear one or two children a year on average. So a population can rebound in one or two generations so long as there are enough women. Discriminatory? Of course. Practical? Absolutely.

so in fact the war scenario (no "normal" livetime situation so not very suited imho) could be seen as a "no paradox" as the entity that discriminates *is* the government. To lower it down to the person level is just to let the frame circumstances (government) out of sight. About the (darwin) reproducability .. well then this common sense argument should be mentioned in the problem case and so make it clear what it is about .. a stretching of "normal" todays reality .. with 0-3 children per family Ebricca 11:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

rm'd anti-muslim & -arab fiction: =Religious Discrimination= grammar (nation & country != state); npov (dhimm laws not universal; palestinians not a mythical race; judaism legal in .sa); +.sa examples

"An example of ongoing ignorance can be found in a university textbook (...) If such ignorance within higher education is allowed to persist, it is akin to granting the KKK full and unfettered access to the minds and hearts of America's future educators."

This whole paragraph seems very out-of-place and reads more like an opinion piece than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. It makes the instant assumption that discrimination=ignorance, and has plenty of unexplained and ethnocentric references. (Not everyone knows what "the KKK" is; an explanation would be nice, not that the reference is any way appropriate here anyway.)

Could someone replace this paragraph, or just axe it altogether?

[edit] The Paradox of Discrimination

this section needs some work -- LegCircus

Agreed. The question posed obfuscates the distinction between (at least) two separate issues. I'll try and sort out the logical muddles asap. The given question may well illustrate that discrimination issues concerning multiple parties may be difficult to resolve, but I doubt that this can qualify as a paradox.

-- theuser

Even here, the situation is complicated by possible indirect or institutionalized discrimination (...)

What does here exactly mean in this phrase? Sabbut 12:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest just axing the section; in addition to the poor grammar, it's kinda sorta wrong. I'll revise it later today, but the example given about the black musicians not having had access to adequate training until 1989 is more of an example of Total Discrimination. Total Discrimination = Past Discrimination + Current Circumstances. Institutional Discrimination = unconcious choices that restrict the choices of a subordinate group as part of the normal (often bureaucratic) functions of society. --S

(Also, the academic community widely considers the premise that it is based on to be NPOV, but i'll let that go since the academic community insofar as race, gender, and ethnicity is biased too. A bigger problem with the sections premise is that it should be clear who is discriminated against because there is an interplay between subordinate and dominant groups; Ergo: Motive makes the case. Some feminists would argue that the women are discriminated against regardless of the intentions of the policy-makers because their decision was based on stereotypical conceptions of gender roles, and also simply because the dominant group made the choice of who would fight without consulting the vast majority of fictional women in this hypothetical situation. Either way, discrimination is a very specific and multi-faceted phenomenon, and the more I think about it I really don't see what this hypothetical situation does positively; it seems more to just a broad musing on discrimination that is hardly factual.)

[edit] Some Issues with this article.

I see a few issues with this article such as:

Prominent links to main articles on the different forms of discrimination covered under the various sections would be useful.
The section of religious discrimination needs to have a introduction as to what it is in general rather then simply launching into a discussion of discrimination against muslims.
There should be a section providing summery of racial discrimination with a link to it's main article.
There should be sections for other forms of discrimination too with links to separate articles such discrimination based on weight, height, a physical or mental handicapped, etc.
The word "discrimination" has become so associated these days with negative forms of discrimination that rarely used to refer to more acceptable forms of discrimination such when one chooses who to date based on compatibility or who to hire as an employee based references. This article should mention that.

--Cab88 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A comment about the last of the listed issues: To discriminate is "to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit". Distinctions which are based just on individual merit (such as personal appearance, or the references that a person provides) may be inappropriate (or even illegal) in some situations, but those distinctions are not discriminatory.

--Bruce Rosar 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at was that say when one talks about "discriminating tastes" it carries with it a different connotation then if one referred to say "discriminating against black customers". Though on reconsideration, I think mention of this distinction is probably not an extremely important to this article as I first thought. --Cab88 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Most dictionaries use a positive definition of discrimination as simply "deciding wisely between possibilities" as their first defitinition and the negatively charged one later. I also believe the negative definition is the later, subsidiary one. 64.12.116.70 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from the article itself: This article is about discrimination in the social science sense. For the act of distinguishing/discriminating between things see distinction, difference, comparison --Bruce Rosar 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the point made above about negitive discrimination, I would suggest that the correct analysis of negitive descrimination is discrimination which is unjustified. Some discrimination even on the basis of race, sex etc. is justified.

For example, a film director is casting for the role of Martin Luther King and refuses to consider any white or female actors for the role, the film director is discriminating on the basis of race and sex but is justified in doing so as having a certain race and sex are relevent to being able to perform that role.

User:Matt

Since the distinction made between actors competing for the role is based on individual merit (how convincingly an actor will be able to dramatically portray on-stage a particular historical figure whose race and sex is well-known), that casting process is not an example of social discrimination. --Wiley 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an article about the authors take on discrimination against muslims?

the section on religious discrimination is awful. it does not posit a defintion of religious discrimination but makes unsupported claims about muslims in the US workforce with a weak attempt later to appear credible by citing a small bit about "non-muslims".

please people, wikipedia is not a forum to express your personal views, it is intended to be more academic and OBJECTIVE.

[edit] Biggest Discriminator?

The following line is pushing some serious POV:

"However, Denmark is considered the biggest discriminator against Muslims (the largest minority in Denmark) by not allowing Muslims to own burial grounds, which leads Muslims to send the bodies of their deceased family members for traditional burial in other countries."

"is considered"? Who's considering?? Folks if such lines are going to be included in this article there need to be citations.... due to the fact that this claim is unsupported I'm tucking it right here. Netscott 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religous discrimination

Hi,

I moved a few things around in the religious discrimination part to make this section more objective. I also removed the part on france, austria and germany taking position against the adhesion of Turkey in the European Union which has more to do with international politics than discrimination. There is still no section on racial discrimination which I think would be nice because it tend to be assimilated with religious discrimination even if it is not the same thing. Good luck all! --Maxime 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on discrimination

At the top of this talk page, there is a line that says: "This is the place to discuss views on discrimination". Why? I thought article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not for discussing personal opinions. (Is this vandalism?) --Bowlhover 18:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language Based Discrimination

There exist, but are there now enough links for language based discrimination? Additionally, any examples from other countries could be welcome. Kielisoturi 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In general Finnish opinion, there is really no discrimination politics between Finns and Swedes. Some fennomans say there is, but not really. Fennomans think they should decide the situation of the Swedish in Finland. This is not a NPOV, onl specified by modern-day fennomans. --Lalli 09:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rankism

There seems no particular reason to have a separate article on that. Merge suggested, but tag removed a time or two by User:Ombudsman. Arguments for separate article?...Midgley 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert W. Fuller, the author of Somebodies & Nobodies (the book that "identified the malady of rankism"), defines Rankism as "... behavior towards people who have ... lower rank in a particular hierarchy" in his "weblog". The Discrimination article begins with this definition: "To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit." Comparing the two definitions, Mr. Fuller's Rankism is not a form of discrimination since the definition of rankism does not make a distinction between:
- rank assigned on the basis of class or category and
- rank assigned on the basis of individual merit --Wiley 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to see an actual reasoned argument on this. However the first line of the rankism article states that it is a form of discrimination. Now it may be that that is the faulty part and should be altered - I wonder if you would care to go to that article and alter it? "Rankism is a term coined by physicist, educationalist and citizen diplomat Robert W. Fuller for negative discrimination predicated" it says. Midgley 23:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it may be that that is the faulty part

I agree. Fuller's own description is "abuse, discrimination, or exploitation" [1]. Tearlach 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've altered the Rankism article for a more NPOV.--Wiley 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia "notability" discrimination

I added this, as it is not okay that people are not allowed to have a Wikipedia entry on their name, and there pages are systematically transferred into the User section, like mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigdowski_robert . I feel that is discrimination of minorities. Each person has in my eyes the same value, hence I ask that Justice will be rendered.

[edit] Political Emancipation

In light of discrimination, the wiki page Political_emancipation could use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? Inserting the Voting Rights Act as such a step of political emancipation, for instance, was repeatedly erased. The question one could pose, is: When there have been only 3 African-American Senators in modern times (out of more than the 1500 Senators in total), would you say that political emancipation has been achieved or does the political system sustain discrimination and help to create discrimination?

FredrickS 19:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link repair: Power changed to Power (sociology)

I did this to avoid sending readers to the Power disambiguation page, which deals with, among other things, electrical power. Gerry Ashton 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist discrimination

"Research shows that non-religious people (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are subject to the most widespread religious discrimination[3] outside the Communist world[citation needed]. During his 1988 Presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush stated that atheists should not be considered patriots or citizens. [4]"

Firstly, the word 'research' is being used in the plural sense in this sentence yet only one report is cited.
Secondly, the report is specific to the US.
Thirdly, the report doesn't examine acts of discrimination, but attitudes on atheists, specifically whether they share the respondants "vision of American society.”

Perhaps it would be better to phrase the statement this way: "Atheists commonly claim to be victims of discrimination that is similar in nature to that experienced by religious groups. One report suggested that atheists are viewed as being the least likely to share the 'typical vision' of American society, a result some might argue equates atheism with being 'un-American' in the minds of most Americans."

GuyIncognito 12:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, "commonly claim" and "Some might argue" would not comply with the wikipedia:verifiability policy. "One report" would need a citation.--Wiley 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont really think that it's that important to include it. I just thought it would be more constructive to suggest an alteration rather than simply delete it. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative addition.

--GuyIncognito 09:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesism

How can speciesism not be mentioned on this list. --65.25.8.237 23:06, 8 July 2006

[edit] Discrimination

My assertion is that "discrimination", is and should remain, a neutral term meaning to note the differences that exist between things. Why change the definition by giving negative or positive balance to it. If one wants to convey the idea that differences, either perceived or actual, have been used unfairly, then merely use a term such as "Unfair discrimination" or " negative discrimination", rather than have the word lose it`s original and legitimate definition stemming from the latin "discriminare" meaning to "distinguish between".

There has to be a word to describe the process whereby actual differences can be "discerned" to allow individuals to respond appropriately in relation thereto. We should not infer that this process is automatically unfair.

I perceive that the shifting emphasis in definition has led towards and stemmed from an incorrect view that it is wrong to distinguish between any and/or all acts, that all acts are valid and justifiable. This is clearly not the case. Society must be empowered, not disarmed in it`s ability to make righteous distinctions regarding behaviour and personal/public actions. --Murmc7 13:13, 8 August 2006

The prevailing definition of Discrimination increasingly appears to be that of describing the unfair distinction of things,(especially people). The actual definition of Discrimination is the act of noticing or "Discerning" differences which exist. It is merely the ability to discern reality or to see the difference within and/or between things, (usually people).

The word comes from the Latin "Discriminare" which means to "distinguish between". It is not wrong, bad, or negative to "Distinguish" or "Discriminate" between things. It only becomes wrong if the differences percieved/believed to exist are then used in an incorrect or unfair way, i.e., to "Discrimianate unfairly".

The danger in portraying the assumption that; any distinction or differentiation between things is wrong, is that people become disempowered in acting against right and wrong as the inference is generated that all is right and that nothing is wrong. All is fair and justifiable, when in fact the oposite is true. Right and wrong do exist, good and bad are real. Society must be clear on this and be able to cleary communicate through proper definition, the process whereby this can occur. Society must "Discriminate"; that is discern between right and wrong and act favourably in response to the differences perceived. --Murmc7 05:14, 14 August 2006

This line of thought is interesting. I agree that, fundamentally, discrimination is about discernment of differences and that what we're talking about in this article is when the discernment of differences is turned into action (or inaction, say, in not hiring someone) in a way deemed unfair or perhaps even unlawful. The human brain seems wired to discern differences; human development is in some ways a journey of increasingly greater distinction-making, as infants progress from perceiving the world as an undifferentiated mass of sensory input to making fine distinctions. The human brain also seems wired to make generalizations, i.e., to apply prior learnings/impressions to new situations. This is generally thought of as a good thing; it's what has saved poeple for thousands of years from making the same (sometimes fatal) mistakes over and over. One difficulty all people have, regardless of race, is to sort out when it makes sense to apply a generalization and when it does not. The urge to self-preservation is strong, and one way it manifests itself is in the warning signals you get when you enter what your brain is telling you is a potentially dangerous situation. When I encounter a person on the street who fits the profile of a "bad actor," I instantly feel the urge to take self-protective steps. I don't always know the source of the "profile" I'm carrying around, and some profiles are likely more accurate predictors of trouble than others, and it's also possible that I've been manipulated by stereotypical media portrayals or cynical politicians (I'm thinking of the infamous "Willie Horton" ads). But my point is that in the discernment of salient characteristics that fit a profile that suggests danger, my mind is involuntarily saying: Get out of here! Lock the car doors! Get the kids in the car! This strikes me as a paradox.McTavidge 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some linguistic confusion here. The word discrimination is used in two different contexts: (1) the faculty of detecting an important difference; (2) the illegal act of overemphasizing an insignificant difference.

(Another term with a similar problem is sanction. To "sanction" something is to tolerate it; but a "sanction" is a penalty for doing something.)

Perhaps we need two separate articles for:

The faculty of discrimination (in psychology): the ability to detect important differences
The crime of discrimination (in law): refusing to hire or promote a worker, or to admit a student, on the basis of an irrelevant difference

It's a pity that the same word is used for both concepts, but I'm afraid the English language stuck with it. The best we contributors can do at Wikipedia is to clarify the two usages. --Uncle Ed 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Discrimination

I notice Religious Discrimination doesn't have its own section. It would be groovy to have one. :) That is all. --Alecmconroy 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How much do laws actually protect people?

Discrimination in an employment context is protected against by law, but only against certain protected classes of people. Employment discrimination is not allowed based on one's race or color, national origin, sex or gender, age (if over 40 years old), physical or mental disability, religion and military status.

To quote an old Broadway show, "What a pity if it's all a lie."

We English speakers often speak of laws as "protecting" people from harm. Patents and copyrights supposedly protect innovators and creators from unlicensed copying.

Another view is that the laws against unlicensed copying merely provide recourse. That is, they provide a bases for IP "owners" to take legal action.

Police will investigate "real crimes" like murder, assault, arson and theft. But who investigates cases (or patterns) of discrimination? --Uncle Ed 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I'd like to see the terms favoritism and prejudice used.

When deciding whom to select for admission to an organization, like a company (worker), school (student), member (club); or for the granting of a privilege or performance of a service, like choice of seats (passenger) or being waited on (customer) ...

People tend to favor some types of people over others.

The past 50 years has seen considerble upheaval (at least in the U.S.) over selection rules. Which criteria are permissible? When should favoritism be allowed? When should prejudice be forbidden?

May a college give admissions preference to children of alumni? (Preston got into Yale because his father went there.)
May a city give hiring preferences to blacks and Hispanics? (Leroy and Pedro got an extra 100 points added to their exam scores.)

I don't have the answers, and I'm certainly not suggesting that contributors to this page supply any. What I think we should concentrate on is how various have societies answered these questions. --Uncle Ed 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Descrimination is started because someone doesnt know there culture.

[edit] Raised black fist

I have no suggestions as to what to use, but I think a more appropriate logo could be chosen than the black fist for the articles on discrimination. It just somehow doesn't fit -- "discrimination" is not the word that comes to mind when I see it. (Rather "revolution" or perhaps "oppression," to be generous...)

[edit] Discrimination against those who follow darker athestics?

Is there a form of defined discrimination against those who follow darker lifestyles?

[edit] coro

discrimination

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/Talk%7EDiscrimination_3796.html"

Categories: B-Class sociology articles | High-importance sociology articles | To do | To do, priority undefined