Talk:Discrimination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Sociology | (Rated B-Class, High-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Discrimination | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated B-Class) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
edit · history · watch · refresh  To-do list for Discrimination: |
|
|---|---|
|
|
Please add new comments at the bottom of this talk page.
[edit] Origins of antidiscrimination laws : Canon law (bible) and other discriminatory law systems : islamic sharia and hindu castes
The basis of different law systems is found in religions, and therefore the different views of the major religions that influenced law should be given. The basis of antidiscrimination is obviously found in the "all men are created equal" statements in the bible.
It should be explained what the different legal bases were for discrimination over the ages. The example of the declaration that black people were considered animals by some dark age legal systems.
Furthermore the alternative, openly racist law systems should be discussed. The caste system, which is clearly racist, is hindu in origin, and the open religious persecution that sharia demands should be mentioned, as they are the basis for the suffering of millions upon millions of people. It should also be mentioned where inside those movements these things originate, specifying for example that the muslim prophet committed religious massacres ("justified by a dream of allah").
Also it defies logic that nazism is not mentioned.
[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? what is an Anti-Discrimination Notice?
- 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?
List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 50 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies
(7) 5% of all new intake for government army, nurses, polices, is non-malays
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Approved Permits, Taxi Permits, etc
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14) 100 big companies set up, managed and owned by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. MISC, UMBC, UTC, etc
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired e.g. Medicine (in 2004)
(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas
(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenship compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is poor or rich
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41) 0 churches/temples were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No churches, no temples are required to be built in housing estates
(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.
[edit] Credit history and some complaints
I deleted a irrelevant section about employers requiring credit history. Even if that were discrimination, which I dispute, and assuming it should be mentioned in the article if it was, which I also dispute, it clearly didn't belong to the section it was in, which was about american federal laws against discrimination.
I think the article is poorly written and needs a workover. To many irrelevant sentences are put in sections they don't belong to. .
Furthermore, can people please understand that this is not a place to air their own grievances. The article should be mainly about the usual commonly recognized grounds of discrimination, like sex, race and so on. A short section discussing "speciesism" and so on can be appropriate but no more. That you believe speciesism or "adultism" (all the "ism" mentioned in the article, like adultism, capabilityism, or whatever makes the article sound like a bad joke. Thus anyone really use theses names?) to be wrongs doesn't mean they should be extensively discussed in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia until you get mainstream support for your ideas.
[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.
-
-
- 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)
January 7, 2008 Religion Based Discrimination Freedom being defined: when we are all equal, have the same access to same resources, protected by same laws. When the "ONE" has the same rights as the "WHOLE". When gays and lesbians have a right to become a union to marry. When a male-lawyer/judge is allowed to have long-hair in a pony-tail, in court, before public. When beyond our control; that we were born as a boy not a girl, of white caucation not black, to Irish parents not Indus. Not being afraid of exposing oneself's identity, instead of hiding behind fake name. Being able to publish your opinion. Being able to accept others' freedoms. Following the law, while, St-Marry's Hospital in Montreal, a public-hospital subsidized by the government, allowed displaying religion-icons over its public-places, including the patient's room above his bed? How do this religion-icons, at St-Marry's-Hospital, help performing hospital's tasks? In which way, do they have anything to do with the operation of a hospital? Are the patients in better hands & looked after better with the icons, than without them? Is a TAXI of a less of a public-place than St-Marry's? Are you of a less worth, than someone elsses? Which law do I follow? Our young-boys gave their lives in WW2, so we could be free to remember, remembering by displaying. I fail to see the connection between language and freedom? Is it to be implied that our young-boys were all french-speaking? My name: Arieh Perecowicz. You may find me and my story, aired on CBC-TV-NEWS, on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
As well, search Google for: "Montreal Taxi Discrimination" (author: by lionpuppyheart) Please, you may reply with your opinion/comment/response
Refference at Link
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191 Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Canadian Veteran WW2 Memorial Poppy [ Mood: Very Sad ] Do you feel that the Canadian-Veteran-Memorial-Poppy is for display on November 11 @ 11 hour, for two minutes only?
Do you feel that the place of the Poppy, being displayed, is on your lappel only?
Do you feel that displaying the Poppy thruout the year, behond November 11, diminishes the cause?
Do we need the Poppy all together?
Is it important to Remember?
References see Links at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1010871
http://lionpuppyheart1.blogspot.com/ Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Rights in Our Place of Work [ Mood: Confused ] Do you feel that photo(s), of love-ones, are acceptable, and to be allowed in a TAXI-car?
Do you feel that photo(s), of any kind, are NOT to be allowed in a Public-Transport vehicle?
Some YES some NOT?
wife, husband, daughter, son, father, mother, girlfrieng, boyfriend, dog, cat, etc?
Will the photo(s) cause a distraction?
Will the photo(s) diminish the quality of the taxi-ride?
Will the photo(s) be offensives?
Will they infringe on someone elsses rights?
Is it unprofessionally to have photo(s) in Public-Transportation?
Is paying for the ride buy you ownership of the ride?
Will the taxi-car look/feel being messy--untidy?
Would you feel uncomfortable/ rather have the taxi-car an empty cubical-shell?
Any comments-responses out there, from anyone, regarding your rights at your work-place?
Let me hear from you
Refer to my story at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart Posted By: Arieh :-( January 7, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.5.56 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is this? Gtbob12 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2008 (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)
[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
I agree, speciesism as well as the animal rights should be listed under forms of discrimination as well anti-discrimination movements respectively.
Because we're only talking about discrimination that matters. Gtbob12 (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[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 people 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)
I suppose, but there's a deeper thing going on here, a merger of the two notions you would have us break apart and analyze separately. It sometimes happens that actions (or inactions) perceived as unfairly discriminatory are founded in, or informed by, experiences. The basic point is that the mind makes "discriminations" (informed by experience, prejudice ... hard to say sometimes).McTavidge (talk)
-
- This entire article is inherently POV, and will always be, because the "prevailing view" of discrimination is itself POV. The "prevailing view" is that "discrimination is wrong" which is (obviously) POV. Just read through the comments below about "falling under sizeism" and "speciesism" which simply assume that discrimination is wrong. This entire article should be re-written as part progressive ideology. As of now, it appears as factual information and thus does not belong. Loundry (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
January 7, 2008 Religion Based Discrimination Freedom being defined: when we are all equal, have the same access to same resources, protected by same laws. When the "ONE" has the same rights as the "WHOLE". When gays and lesbians have a right to become a union to marry. When a male-lawyer/judge is allowed to have long-hair in a pony-tail, in court, before public. When beyond our control; that we were born as a boy not a girl, of white caucation not black, to Irish parents not Indus. Not being afraid of exposing oneself's identity, instead of hiding behind fake name. Being able to publish your opinion. Being able to accept others' freedoms. Following the law, while, St-Marry's Hospital in Montreal, a public-hospital subsidized by the government, allowed displaying religion-icons over its public-places, including the patient's room above his bed? How do this religion-icons, at St-Marry's-Hospital, help performing hospital's tasks? In which way, do they have anything to do with the operation of a hospital? Are the patients in better hands & looked after better with the icons, than without them? Is a TAXI of a less of a public-place than St-Marry's? Are you of a less worth, than someone elsses? Which law do I follow? Our young-boys gave their lives in WW2, so we could be free to remember, remembering by displaying. I fail to see the connection between language and freedom? Is it to be implied that our young-boys were all french-speaking? My name: Arieh Perecowicz. You may find me and my story, aired on CBC-TV-NEWS, on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
As well, search Google for: "Montreal Taxi Discrimination" (author: by lionpuppyheart) Please, you may reply with your opinion/comment/response
Refference at Link
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191 Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Canadian Veteran WW2 Memorial Poppy [ Mood: Very Sad ] Do you feel that the Canadian-Veteran-Memorial-Poppy is for display on November 11 @ 11 hour, for two minutes only?
Do you feel that the place of the Poppy, being displayed, is on your lappel only?
Do you feel that displaying the Poppy thruout the year, behond November 11, diminishes the cause?
Do we need the Poppy all together?
Is it important to Remember?
References see Links at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1010871
http://lionpuppyheart1.blogspot.com/ Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Rights in Our Place of Work [ Mood: Confused ] Do you feel that photo(s), of love-ones, are acceptable, and to be allowed in a TAXI-car?
Do you feel that photo(s), of any kind, are NOT to be allowed in a Public-Transport vehicle?
Some YES some NOT?
wife, husband, daughter, son, father, mother, girlfrieng, boyfriend, dog, cat, etc?
Will the photo(s) cause a distraction?
Will the photo(s) diminish the quality of the taxi-ride?
Will the photo(s) be offensives?
Will they infringe on someone elsses rights?
Is it unprofessionally to have photo(s) in Public-Transportation?
Is paying for the ride buy you ownership of the ride?
Will the taxi-car look/feel being messy--untidy?
Would you feel uncomfortable/ rather have the taxi-car an empty cubical-shell?
Any comments-responses out there, from anyone, regarding your rights at your work-place?
Let me hear from you
Refer to my story at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart Posted By: Arieh :-( January 7, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.5.56 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (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)
The problem is That islam itself is discriminatory against non-muslims. Sharia law is very clear on the subject : the must always be constant discrimination, both against women and against non-muslims. The biggest example : You know the concept of blood money ? You can "buy-off" the punishment for murder. The prices are different depending on the victim : 20,000$ for killing a muslim male. 10.000$ for a christian male or a muslim female. 5000$ for a christian female ... etc.
Furthermore sharia explicitly specifies that a muslim cannot be punished by death for killing a non-muslim. Obviously this is plainly racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.31.225 (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
January 7, 2008 Religion Based Discrimination Freedom being defined: when we are all equal, have the same access to same resources, protected by same laws. When the "ONE" has the same rights as the "WHOLE". When gays and lesbians have a right to become a union to marry. When a male-lawyer/judge is allowed to have long-hair in a pony-tail, in court, before public. When beyond our control; that we were born as a boy not a girl, of white caucation not black, to Irish parents not Indus. Not being afraid of exposing oneself's identity, instead of hiding behind fake name. Being able to publish your opinion. Being able to accept others' freedoms. Following the law, while, St-Marry's Hospital in Montreal, a public-hospital subsidized by the government, allowed displaying religion-icons over its public-places, including the patient's room above his bed? How do this religion-icons, at St-Marry's-Hospital, help performing hospital's tasks? In which way, do they have anything to do with the operation of a hospital? Are the patients in better hands & looked after better with the icons, than without them? Is a TAXI of a less of a public-place than St-Marry's? Are you of a less worth, than someone elsses? Which law do I follow? Our young-boys gave their lives in WW2, so we could be free to remember, remembering by displaying. I fail to see the connection between language and freedom? Is it to be implied that our young-boys were all french-speaking? My name: Arieh Perecowicz. You may find me and my story, aired on CBC-TV-NEWS, on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
As well, search Google for: "Montreal Taxi Discrimination" (author: by lionpuppyheart) Please, you may reply with your opinion/comment/response
Refference at Link
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191 Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Canadian Veteran WW2 Memorial Poppy [ Mood: Very Sad ] Do you feel that the Canadian-Veteran-Memorial-Poppy is for display on November 11 @ 11 hour, for two minutes only?
Do you feel that the place of the Poppy, being displayed, is on your lappel only?
Do you feel that displaying the Poppy thruout the year, behond November 11, diminishes the cause?
Do we need the Poppy all together?
Is it important to Remember?
References see Links at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1013191
http://thesuburban.com/content.....id=1010871
http://lionpuppyheart1.blogspot.com/ Posted By: Arieh :-(
January 7, 2008 Our Rights in Our Place of Work [ Mood: Confused ] Do you feel that photo(s), of love-ones, are acceptable, and to be allowed in a TAXI-car?
Do you feel that photo(s), of any kind, are NOT to be allowed in a Public-Transport vehicle?
Some YES some NOT?
wife, husband, daughter, son, father, mother, girlfrieng, boyfriend, dog, cat, etc?
Will the photo(s) cause a distraction?
Will the photo(s) diminish the quality of the taxi-ride?
Will the photo(s) be offensives?
Will they infringe on someone elsses rights?
Is it unprofessionally to have photo(s) in Public-Transportation?
Is paying for the ride buy you ownership of the ride?
Will the taxi-car look/feel being messy--untidy?
Would you feel uncomfortable/ rather have the taxi-car an empty cubical-shell?
Any comments-responses out there, from anyone, regarding your rights at your work-place?
Let me hear from you
Refer to my story at
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=lionpuppyheart Posted By: Arieh :-( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.5.56 (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (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)
- Semantics. But it would probably be better to just say "illegal" rather than "protected". On the other hand, it is normal for discussion of laws to be treated as if they are enforced. Discussion of how well laws are enforced is not a matter of law per se but of law enforcement. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:20, 6 June 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...)
- Yeah, let's POV the hell out of this article. Great idea! Loundry (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discrimination against those who follow darker athestics?
Is there a form of defined discrimination against those who follow darker lifestyles? Yes, it's called anti-zionist,thus this would make me anti-semite for stating such facts.The world is not blind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.20.228 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Heres another Form!
Massism. against people who are over or underweight, agains those who are obese and those who are anerexic.
- I think that falls under Sizeism. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject
Looking for anyone interested in a WP that would cover scope of all discrimination articles -- maintenance, POV/NPOV watch, standards, etc. WikiProject Discrimination? It would include, for example, most of the articles in (or including) the template, from Racism to Anti-Catholicism to Misandry and so on. Oh, and the template itself, too. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discrimination as prejudice against humans only
Can we please have a reference stating that prejudice against animals is not discrimination, and mention of speciesism as a related topic? Richard001 10:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree that speciesism is a general form of discrimination as well, please add to general forms as well. -- 58.160.97.254 11:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regression of article etc.
The article needs to be rolled-back to a previous version andor cleaned up. For example this version appears to be more ordered, at least in the introduction. Yes, recent edits to this article have not improved it, and appear to have made it worse. -Stevertigo 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a diff showing what changed since July 1, the version that Stevertigo above linked to as an example of a better version. Big changes have been only four, all other being small good faith changes (such as adding links, references, and correcting language) and vandalism that was reverted. The four big changes since July 1 were:
- The first big change, a single edit in July 6, added four paragraphs to the section "Reverse discrimination", which was only a stub until then.
- The second big change consisted of three diffs: [2] [3] [4], all changing the introduction. in July 29, the two first diffs clarified that discrimination based on individual merit is legal and said that illegal discrimination is called discrimination "against" someone. I can't understand what the introduction meant before this change. The third diff was not good and I don't know what it means.
- The third big change is about age discrimination. It was a good change because the article used to say "teenagers consider they are discriminated", and from then on said "some people consider that teenagers are discriminated". However, the rest of the change was bad because it seemed to endorse that position (using the phrase "social justice") without justifying the endorsement, thus adding unverifiable information to the article (that age discrimination is real) and vague information (it doesn't say which societies do that).
- The fourth big change removed one paragraph and one reference from the section "Drug discrimination", which was explained in the edit summary as "clean up".
- I don't think that reverting to July 1 is the best idea. Removing bad content or letting it be so the article eventually improves on its own would be best, or perhaps trying to improve the article ourselves. Small good faith edits have been useful.
- This diff that I considered a small change was particularly important to me, because I had read in this article that gender discrimination included discrimination based on sexual orientation, and the Constitution of my country explicitly forbids gender discrimination, which led me to believe that said Constitution explicitly forbade discrimination based on sexual orientation. A.Z. 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Terminology and general copy edit
I made a few changes to remove what appeared to be some original research on terminology, and replaced the verbiage with the actual legal terms. The only problem is that the examples given really related to USA law, so I had to use USA legal terms.
For example, the article referred to "direct" discrimination and "less direct" discrimination, but then gave examples that deal with USA law basically. If we're going to use USA law, the correct term for what was being called "direct" discrimination is disparate treatment (which means intentional discrimination). The correct term for what was being called "less direct" discrimination is disparate impact (also known as adverse impact, a term that Professor Elwyn Lee at the University of Houston Law Center endorses) as in the example of the famous Griggs v. Duke Power case, where the discrimination was not necessarily intentional, but simply had the effect of unduly burdening a particular recognized class of people.
Anyway, this is just a start. Needs more citations, though. And maybe needs to be "internationalized" more (but I know nothing of law of nations other than USA). Famspear 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: I don't think Professor Lee teaches at the U of H law school any more, but he taught the employment discrimination course there years ago. Famspear 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Poor bashing
Has there ever been any talk of including poor bashing as a form of discrimination ?? It would not surprise me if the answer is no . Poverty is often legislated and society's solution to poverty is all too often dismissive. Panhandlers and or the homeless are encouraged to "get a job " as the working poor were not a real extant group of people. Read this [5] and give the idea of including the poor as a major victim of discrimination. : Albion moonlight 06:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discrimination and zack
Zack is a monster who has discriminated against us by distroying the page on discrimination. But this has earned us an extra day to work on our project.
Thankyou zack ;)
[edit] Polarized black and white thinking.
Polarized black and white thinking.
An oberservation.
Many topics, including discrimination have been polarized in North America.
For example, 'the poor' are often, sometimes viewed as poor becaue of circumstances beyond their control. While this may be true in SOME cases, in SOME cases the people who are poor are because of their own poor choices. Often political views are 'black or white', not a good sign of thinking. In some other cases it is the result of a combination of poor choices, theirs and 'the systems'.
Discrimination, in North America is often viewed as negative although the positive results of good discrimination are ignored, probably because of political pressures, we call political correctness, but should be called political appropriateness.
Anyway, there is good and bad in all things, and topics, and so it is with discrimination.
Great example: Aboriginals in Canada.
On the one hand political movements have been founded on not allowing people to discriminate against people because of their ethnic background. But when the system allows positive discrimination, as according to the constitution to overcome past injustices, they allow it, permit and legislate it.
There comes a point where positive discrimination becomes negative discrimination....
Suggestion to include both uses of the word, and suggest that the term is unclear, unless used with an adjective, ie positive discrimination verses negative discrimination.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] removed edit
I removed this, as I thought it was a bit off in the article: "Some gas stations also discriminate against those who pay with cash by forcing them to prepay. This is even worse when you can consider that those who pay with cash save the gas stationmoney (no credit card comission)." Still, it is not without interest. Any comments? Greswik (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it belongs in the article because it discriminates against a wide range of people (think about who has trouble getting credit cards). 131.123.11.150 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- [[Iff}} a reliable source can be found for it, yes, otherwise it should not be in the article. User:Dorftrottel 07:35, January 26, 2008
Discrimination is WRONG and AGAINST THE LAW!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.252.60 (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ha
People have no right to complain about discrimination the Majority ALWAYS oppresses the minority. Why are there no whites in say Nigeria? bEcause they would be a majoruty and thus opressed, if the world was 90% homosexual they would opress all the heterosexuals, if the world was 90% redhead they would opress all the non redheads. Every day the world is becoming more secular and ta da as a result religions are being discriminated against. Its just the way of the world.--Lord Haw Haw29 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] personal blogs on discrimination
This post is for people who would like to post the URL's of their blogs that discuss discrimination.
mine is:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/oh-bugger
Scattyscat (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Change article title to "Discrimination (against)"
(162.84.184.38 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Discriminating against "ugliness"
This article is lacking on that topic. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discrimination
A beach BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.166.44 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
this is crap it didn't help me at all !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.54.78 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discriminating wisdom
Shouldn't there be a disambiguation for discrimination? there is another meaning besides discriminating against, for example the following:
8th October 2008
What all Sadhakas (spiritual aspirants) have to do is this: first, Viveka is to be developed, that is to say, the capacity to distinguish between the eternal and the transitory, and to decide which is worthy. Second, a sincere attempt has to be made to experience what is chosen as worthy and true. Third, that effort should not be given up, whatever be the obstacles that come in the way. These three constitute genuine Tapas (penance). From this Tapas alone, real Shanti (peace) and Ananda (joy) is born.
- BABA
- Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.141 (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming was a bad idea
User:TimNelson recently moved the article which was previously here at Discrimination to Bases of Discrimination. I think this move was a bad move (no pun intended) on several fronts.
The major problem is that while the word "Discrimination" does have meanings beyond unjust or controversial discrimination against a group or kind of people, there is no Wikipedia content about the other meanings; there is a Category:Discrimination and a Template:Discrimination, and the term is generally used in the "against" sense all over Wikipedia. A link to wiktionary would serve to cover any other meanings of it; this article here now that TimNelson has created is little more than a definition and a link to "Bases of Discrimination" anyway, and is completely unsourced to boot.
The second, more minor problem is that the new title for the old article breaks Wiki article naming standards. It should be "Bases for discrimination"; note the capitalization. But this is really a minor nitpick compared to the bigger problem outlined above.
Agree/disagree? Moving it back again will now require admin assistance, so we should demonstrate a consensus here before asking for help doing so. --Pfhorrest (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree it was indeed a very bad idea. Please revert it. thanks Peter morrell 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Concur on the need to move it back. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm happy as long as the article that's moved back has something at the top (like a disambig thing) that says "The word 'discrimination' has a more general sense than is used in this article; see <wiktionary link> for details". This would be much like the disclaimer at the top of the Electric Folk article.
- -- TimNelson (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad we can work together here. I've just made some edits to Bases of Discrimination along those lines; do you approve? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
On request by e-mail, I've moved the article back again. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lead definition
A common dictionary definition is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit". This is also how several editors above have referred to it as, but I think the current definition is rather too vague, simply saying "certain characteristics", and not discounting individual merit.
Also, should it specify "prejudicial treatment"? Although discrimination is often if not mostly due to prejudice, and may be used as synonymous to prejudice, it would surely discount statistical discrimination, which we should not ignore. Mdwh (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Having said that, I see that the top says this article focuses on prejudicial discrimination. I think that's fine to have separate articles, but I worry that if we're starting off with a definition of "Discrimination" as opposed to ("Prejudiced Discrimination"), we should be inclusive. Also in some cases it may be a matter of opinion what category something falls into. Mdwh (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
after establishing that we are dealing with a narrow meaning of the term, not the full meaning of discrimination but the secondary or tertiary specialized meaning of discriminating based on category memberships which "should not" be affecting the judgement, the main pitfall is recognizing that discrimination is always directed against individuals, not against groups.
An individual is being discriminated against if classed according to a stereotype associated with their group, if they do not themselves possess that attribute. A member of a group stereotypically considered stupid is not discriminated against in being treated "as if" stupid if the individual is, in fact, stupid. On the other hand, an individual associated with a group stereotypically considered stupid is being discriminated against by being treated as if stupid, if the individual is in fact intelligent.
This very simple distinction would work wonders against the unhappy tendency to live up to the stereotypes of your group because you can always cry "discrimination" if people take you to task for your behaviour. --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A poor example.
"An example of direct discrimination would be not offering a job to a woman because she is likely to take maternity leave whereas a man is not."
This wasn't sourced, so it seemed fair to actually mention that this isn't discrimination. The definition of discrimination would be not offering a person of type A a job because they are of type A. Taking an actual fact into consideration, is the very concept of considering the individual situation, whether the factors are blanket or not. It would be discrimination if the same people would not offer the job even if the women could not get pregnant, in which case, the quoted text is still wrong in mentioning the consideration. I wouldn't agree with the reasoning, but my point is, this is not discrimination, it would be far more approprietaly (if somewhat redundant) written...
"An example of direct discrimination would be not offering a job to a woman because she is a woman whereas a man is not."
Notice the lack of reasoning that would actually apply to the situation, the complete irrational fallacy that makes discrimination so absurd. As opposed to the current text that actually supports discriminaion by implying it takes reasonable consideration, a shocking idea, and I hope we're not incorrectly identifying discrimination as a positive thing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no argument, so I assume it's silently accepted. Removed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
discrimination is the number one enemy of the immigrant student in america....asian student cannot concentrate on there studies because of this, this may cause them to have negative background of how some people in america treat the people from other state...i am an immigrant to from the phillippines and im very nervous about how am i going to be treated at school because im a new student...i have read some article about discrimination and i have been thinking that how can i not be discriminated there if i get there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.34.244 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The example goes to the heart of the difficulty. The problems begin when a judgement is made on the probability of something happening. It is undeniable that a woman is more likely to become pregnant than a man. This is a judgement about possible futures. If you want to avoid losing labor force due to pregnancy, preferring male applicants isn't irrational judgement based on group membership, but perfectly rational.
We would only look at discrimination if a male applicant was preferred on such grounds even against a female applicant who can prove her infertility. In this case, the female applicant would be judged by a property of her group (able to become pregnant) she does not herelf share.
This gets hairy in the case of race and intelligence or race and crime, of course. Being reduced to a probabilistic judgement, you would necessarily need to prefer an Asian applicant over white and black ones if intelligent was a factor, in the absence of additional information. Of course, if you have the opportunity to check the individual intelligence of the applicants, the bias based on race will disappear. But as long as you do not have any information other than race, your judgement will be rational, and not discriminatory, if you selected the applicant statistically most likely to fit your profile best. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- My point entirely! Though, check the facts on the end, asian intelligence is not a genetic issue, with statistics showing second and third generation britains with asian backgrounds to be less disciplined, especially in maths than their Asian national counterparts. In that case however, it wouldn't be "discirimination" under the articles definition to take into account nationality knowing of the better educational discipline. It's all become so absurd, as if female pregnancy is spontaneous and indiividual consideration can be conisdered racist, when racism requres a collective prejudice in the first place. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Affirmative Action
Deleted "Affirmative Action is NOT discrimination. It is an attempt to level an action as a result of discrimination." for POV. It is by definition discrimination: It is the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating[making a difference in treatment] categorically rather than individually. It is a prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [Marriam-Webster]. When someone practicing affirmative action wishes to grant a job, loan, house, scholarship, or other good, he uses the race of the individual as part of the consideration process. Racial discrimination. This speaks nothing on wether discrimination is "bad" per se, but wether or not it is bad does not invalidate the inherent definition of the word. One could consider Affirmative Action "good discrimination" in "retaliation" to "bad discrimination" towards minority racial groups. It's best to remain neutral and leave off any of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.240.92 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. Dicrimination is "The act of discriminating." In order to level action, one would only have to not discriminate, affirmative action discriminates, and is therefore, discrimination. "It is a prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment [Marriam-Webster]", i found this quote youc hose to produce particularly ironic in consideration of the previous statement which claims that non-affirmative action is individual, when prejudice is about ignoring individual merit in considerations! Both affirmative action and discrimination against people that isn't called affirmative action (there's no actual definition difference, only a name) is categorical in terms of the legal position and individual in it's application. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Discrimination means "The act of discriminating." However, this article isn't about "the act of discriminating" as such, but about a narrowed meaning of unduly discriminating based on category membership. That is, "discrimination" in the sense of this article implies that whoever uses the term disapproves. In this sense, "affirmative action" is discrimination if you think that it is wrong. This is a political question. Enforcing affirmative action is, in fact, discrimination against the decision-makers concerned, because by making allowance for their discrimination against racial groups, it is making the assumption that all decision-makers act upon racial prejudice. Conversely, of course, the same way that "affirmative action" is designed to counter negative discrimination, it actually justifies counter-counter-discrimination, racial discrimination not motivated by racial stereotypes, but in the attempt to balance affirmative action. You see where this leads. The upshot is that "discrimination" includes whichever categorial judgements you consider unjustified, while it does not include those you consider justified. It's not objective, it's a statement of political opinion. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This entire discussion presumes that "affirmative action" is equivalent to discrimination in favor of historically disadvantaged groups, and both in theory and in practice, that's simply false. If a university were to decide that its existing admissions policies were discriminatory - because, for example, it tended to solicit applications mostly from all-white or mostly-white high schools - and changed those policies to solicit applications from a broader set of more diverse high schools, the change would be "affirmative action" but could hardly be described as "discrimination." If an employer were to decide that is hiring policies tended to favor all-white or mostly-white universities over other universities due to historic discrimination against nonwhites, and the employer changed those policies to include recruitment from other, more diverse universities, that, too, would be "affirmative action" but not "discrimination".
I suppose there are some instances of affirmative action which could arguably be described as "discrimination," but the assertion that ALL instances of affirmative action ARE discrimination is inaccurate, and probably POV. The use of affirmative action as an example of discrimination should be REMOVED.--SoLeft (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't much beyond the first and last lines of this, so don't expect me to know what was said in the middle. However, as you went into the rant with assumptions, no sources and a problem with the definition of a word that is supported by sources and the dictionary definition, it goes without saying that not only should the example of affirmative action as discrimination not be removed, but it is entirely correct. Affirmative action doesn't even represent a different form of discrimination, you're just altering the focus with an assumption of targets for the affirmative action and using historical examples unrelated to the actual word in the same way. Try to be unbiased when considering edits whenever possible. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. Upon reading more of your post, it's not that you don't know the definition of discrimination, you don't know the definition of affirmative action. I'd link to the Wikipedia article, but it makes the same mistake of saying that it is equal action, as opposed to action taken for the claim of achieving "equality". This is likely because of the link to the highly racist British Government article in the same paragraph. However, if you read the source that makes that claim, or any of the other definitions of affirmative action, you may actually be able to learn the actual definition, which is of course, to "discriminate" towards a group of people. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how an "Equality Bill" is "highly racist," or, for that matter, how the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where the term "affirmative action" first appeared, is racist, but that's neither here nor there. In any case, the fact that "no true Scotsman" would define affirmative action as anything other than discrimination does not mean that affirmative action is necessarily discrimination. The idea that affirmative action is discrimination is highly debatable, and the assertion that affirmative action IS discrimination is POV. In the interest of neutrality, that assertion should be removed from the head of the article, and in the rest, addressed for what it is: an as-yet-unresolved controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLeft (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm sure if they labelled murder as a "human right", you'd claim you don't know how a human right can be wrong. I'm far from interested in the name of the Bill, attempt to read it and definetly read the Civil Rights Act, which did more damage than a balanced bill that actually considered the Rule of Law would have. Lieing about definitions is also, lieing. You see how that works? When you lie, you lie. And here's how I relate you lieing about me changing the defintion to the actual discussion... when you discriminate, you discriminate, it's shockinlgy technical. The idea that affirmative action is discrimination is not debatable, it's fact. In Britain it is considered unconstitutional for that reason and was declared so in response to government attempts to favour Blacks and Women, I'll find the exact reference if you can't be bothered to look it up, but I'd rather you did; and in America it is considered necessarily so, for the purpose of achieving "equality" (actually read the Civil Rights Act?). In the interest of factuality, the assertion should be left, because it's the definition. If you don't know what affirmative action means, it's not my fault, but as you defined it incorrectly in the post above this one, I think it's safe to assume you're wrong. Affirmative action is not the application of equality as you describe, it is the application of inequality to try and forcefully balance the external forces. That is, to "dissolve the electorate", as is said in relation to the totalitarianism of policies which favour groups in the name of changing public opinion. As I said, Wikipedia's introduction assumes the outcome, without properly describing the action, try to learn all the details before commenting, and then, comment on another Website, because Original Research is not welcome. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how an "Equality Bill" is "highly racist," or, for that matter, how the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where the term "affirmative action" first appeared, is racist, but that's neither here nor there. In any case, the fact that "no true Scotsman" would define affirmative action as anything other than discrimination does not mean that affirmative action is necessarily discrimination. The idea that affirmative action is discrimination is highly debatable, and the assertion that affirmative action IS discrimination is POV. In the interest of neutrality, that assertion should be removed from the head of the article, and in the rest, addressed for what it is: an as-yet-unresolved controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoLeft (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- My bad. Upon reading more of your post, it's not that you don't know the definition of discrimination, you don't know the definition of affirmative action. I'd link to the Wikipedia article, but it makes the same mistake of saying that it is equal action, as opposed to action taken for the claim of achieving "equality". This is likely because of the link to the highly racist British Government article in the same paragraph. However, if you read the source that makes that claim, or any of the other definitions of affirmative action, you may actually be able to learn the actual definition, which is of course, to "discriminate" towards a group of people. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Some people are inserting POV affirmative action into the introduction. IMO, they want affirmative action to be discrimination much more than they want an encyclopedic page. 140.115.135.71 (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, had you the intellectual capacity to see beyond your own irrational indoctrinations, and therefore the ability to think about more than the focuses of your shallow mind, you could have read my edit summary, seen that I have no interest in your line on Affirmative action, and you could remove that without contradiction from me. I will continue to revert as long as you do full reverts of my otherwise correct edit though, as that is vandalism, and the arrogance which drives you to completely brush off the rest of the edit and come here and accuse me of POV, when I was reverting to a consesnsus over an unsourced redefinition is astounding and hightly offensive. I don't give a toss about the link between affirmatvie action and disscrimination, you LIAR, stop accusing me of things that pop into your head while you soaking in your leftist lies. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The main point against using affirmative action as the main example of discrimination is that it is not always discrimination. It is clear that it is a corner case, so we should enlarge the introduction with an attempt to be more clear about why people should think about "affirmative action" in the context of discrimination. I feel a bit concerned that Jimmi Hugh has a desire to focus on his point of view and not the consensus. He stated earlier that he does not believe that the Wikipedia page on affirmative action describes what he means by that term, yet somehow feels that it is consistent to still use "affirmative action" here. It smells a little strange. Twocs (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the spirit of "verifiability, not truth", are there any sources about affirmative action being representative of the term discrimination? Otherwise the introduction of this article could use well-known examples such as redlining and racial quotas. Please comment. Twocs (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now you're pissing me off. Stop accusing me of things that aren't real. What, in the his noddlinesses name are you talking about. I repeat, in vulgar and block worthy language, because your irrationality is making you impossible I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REFERENCE TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I've said it three times, repeated it in the post you are refering to, and still you went on to make accusations about "Jimmi Hugh <having> a desire to focus on his point of view and not the consensus", when I have jsut said, I reverted you VANDALISM becuase you vandalised the defintion and not because of the reference to affirmative action. If you continue to lie about me I will stop acting friendly towards your edits, you irrational individual who I am struggling not to label negatively. There is no point about the affirmative action reference, as I said in the previous post. The fact I would contradict your lies (that affirmative action isn't always discrimination, when it is) is unrelated to that statement and your vandalism. If you feel a bit concerned about imaginary things, perhaps you should see a fucking psychiatrist, because feeling concerned about things that don't exist is extreme paranoia. Accuse me of bad faith again without a shred of evidence and i will strive to irritate you for every second until they block me. I cannot stand lieing and complete apathy towards actual responding to what I write as opposed to what you imagine I write. I advice you do not respond to this with anything but an apology, I can't see it being pretty. And now some quotes from the post you responded to, so that those smarter than you can laugh at your irrational response, "I have no interest in your line on Affirmative action", "the arrogance which drives you to completely brush off the rest of the edit and come here and accuse me of POV, when I was reverting to a consesnsus over an unsourced redefinition", "I don't give a toss about the link between affirmatvie action and disscrimination" and "stop accusing me of things that pop into your head". Definetly some irony in how quickly I picked up on that second quote, considering it's exactly what you're doing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great. I feel that the use of profanity not cordial. Nonetheless, I'm glad that you "don't [care] about the reference to affirmative action". I have removed it, and rephrased using redlining and racial quotas. If there are some other changes, let's try to use sources and NPOV.Twocs (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- How can you honestly still be doing this? How is it physically possible to read the proanity and still not read what I am actually saying? You're amazing... It wasn't supposed to be cordial, but of course you haven't been cordial so don't pretend you have. You have lied about my actions, vandalised my edits with sweeping reforms aimed at making your single meaningless point, attacked my good fatih with blatant fantasies and ignored my every comment on the issue so you could keep up your own delusions. But still, once you are made aware of your blatant Personal Attacks, ignorance of policy and arrogance in one sided recognition of the problem editor, you have the audacity to continue to attack my faith. You can try to use sources, but as I never wrote unsourced information, removed sourced, questioned any sources or changed sourced information, it seems to be you in blatant disregard of policy, not I. You added no sources for your edits, I reverted them, made clear why on three occasions and you continued to pretend you knew some higher level of existence in which the reasoning was different and related to your personal interest in a line I have not debated with you about. I have also never EVER shown a POV in my edits, how dare you, when you're not even on topic accuse me off doing so. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I reiterate that I have always included sources. I have added four sources to this article so far--and if we don't think that they are the best sources, then let's get better ones! Is there a difference between editing an unsourced sentence and writing your own unsourced information? You did insert words into unsourced sentences, but all I have suggested is that those statements you wrote may be wrong, and ask if there are any sources? Although it's important to have someone (like you?) watch this page because people try to vandalize it often, I disagree that this page is about the dictionary definition of discrimination. Discrimination is the sociology term. Furthermore, it's clear that consensus is that this article needs "reforms" (note multiple issues at the head). Last word?Twocs (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- How can you honestly still be doing this? How is it physically possible to read the proanity and still not read what I am actually saying? You're amazing... It wasn't supposed to be cordial, but of course you haven't been cordial so don't pretend you have. You have lied about my actions, vandalised my edits with sweeping reforms aimed at making your single meaningless point, attacked my good fatih with blatant fantasies and ignored my every comment on the issue so you could keep up your own delusions. But still, once you are made aware of your blatant Personal Attacks, ignorance of policy and arrogance in one sided recognition of the problem editor, you have the audacity to continue to attack my faith. You can try to use sources, but as I never wrote unsourced information, removed sourced, questioned any sources or changed sourced information, it seems to be you in blatant disregard of policy, not I. You added no sources for your edits, I reverted them, made clear why on three occasions and you continued to pretend you knew some higher level of existence in which the reasoning was different and related to your personal interest in a line I have not debated with you about. I have also never EVER shown a POV in my edits, how dare you, when you're not even on topic accuse me off doing so. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great. I feel that the use of profanity not cordial. Nonetheless, I'm glad that you "don't [care] about the reference to affirmative action". I have removed it, and rephrased using redlining and racial quotas. If there are some other changes, let's try to use sources and NPOV.Twocs (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now you're pissing me off. Stop accusing me of things that aren't real. What, in the his noddlinesses name are you talking about. I repeat, in vulgar and block worthy language, because your irrationality is making you impossible I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REFERENCE TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. I've said it three times, repeated it in the post you are refering to, and still you went on to make accusations about "Jimmi Hugh <having> a desire to focus on his point of view and not the consensus", when I have jsut said, I reverted you VANDALISM becuase you vandalised the defintion and not because of the reference to affirmative action. If you continue to lie about me I will stop acting friendly towards your edits, you irrational individual who I am struggling not to label negatively. There is no point about the affirmative action reference, as I said in the previous post. The fact I would contradict your lies (that affirmative action isn't always discrimination, when it is) is unrelated to that statement and your vandalism. If you feel a bit concerned about imaginary things, perhaps you should see a fucking psychiatrist, because feeling concerned about things that don't exist is extreme paranoia. Accuse me of bad faith again without a shred of evidence and i will strive to irritate you for every second until they block me. I cannot stand lieing and complete apathy towards actual responding to what I write as opposed to what you imagine I write. I advice you do not respond to this with anything but an apology, I can't see it being pretty. And now some quotes from the post you responded to, so that those smarter than you can laugh at your irrational response, "I have no interest in your line on Affirmative action", "the arrogance which drives you to completely brush off the rest of the edit and come here and accuse me of POV, when I was reverting to a consesnsus over an unsourced redefinition", "I don't give a toss about the link between affirmatvie action and disscrimination" and "stop accusing me of things that pop into your head". Definetly some irony in how quickly I picked up on that second quote, considering it's exactly what you're doing. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the spirit of "verifiability, not truth", are there any sources about affirmative action being representative of the term discrimination? Otherwise the introduction of this article could use well-known examples such as redlining and racial quotas. Please comment. Twocs (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- The main point against using affirmative action as the main example of discrimination is that it is not always discrimination. It is clear that it is a corner case, so we should enlarge the introduction with an attempt to be more clear about why people should think about "affirmative action" in the context of discrimination. I feel a bit concerned that Jimmi Hugh has a desire to focus on his point of view and not the consensus. He stated earlier that he does not believe that the Wikipedia page on affirmative action describes what he means by that term, yet somehow feels that it is consistent to still use "affirmative action" here. It smells a little strange. Twocs (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Commercial discrimination
To be added. See for instance the talk of Meglena Kuneva : European Consumer Commissioner Keynote Speech Roundtable on Online Data Collection, Targeting and Profiling Brussels, 31 March 2009 --Nabeth (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Freedom of religion
It would be interesting if the article could mention the issue of freedom of religion and its relationship to anti-discrimination measures. For instance, religious leaders have been critical of anti-discrimination laws that oblige them to not quote scripture in a homophobic way, or that require Church adoption services to allow gay adoptions. ADM (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- In today's world (21st century), most mainstream churches, organized religion and moral theology adapted measures to prevent or discourage actions or beliefs that may appear sexist (gender roles, restrictions of women in society & prohibitons of women ordained as ministers), anti-Semitic (the "Christ Killer" label on Jews and Judaism) and racially charged (the seed of Cain, tribe of Benjamin & whites/Caucasians as "god's chosen people"), as much they are trying to abandon homophobia or anti-gay rights agendas to improve the treatment of church members who might be homosexual/bisexual either in the open or voluntarily not be in the lifestyle. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think the above covered it, even if off topic. But I'm forced to ask, in what way to gay adoption relate to discrimination? I didn't realise that a same sex couple was capable of producing children and therefore discriminated against in that extension. Thanks for enlightening me ADM. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Second time around
The first time this idead was floated this was the suggestion back in 2007 _________________________________ Looking for anyone interested in a WP that would cover scope of all discrimination articles -- maintenance, POV/NPOV watch, standards, etc. WikiProject Discrimination? It would include, for example, most of the articles in (or including) the template, from Racism to Anti-Catholicism to Misandry and so on. Oh, and the template itself, too. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) __________________________________ now is 2009, and a WIKI project is the way to clean up this article and provide the types information that the many contrivutors above are looking for. Wiki call it using a summary article as the main artilcer which highlights all of the issues under seperate headings and each type of descrimination has a "for more information about this topic see the following page tage below the rtopic heading. You can then have one or more sub articles covering the topic in greater deatil, and as statues vary from country to county you could also have a Discrimination by country section for an article about each country and how itr addresses all types of discrimination. I have been working on the WIKI Dyslexia project, and i will be there for some time yet, but you can ask the WIKi administrators for help insetting up a project, and how to write articles and create categories etc. and you can have older parts of this discussion page put in an archive so you so not loose all the valuable input but clear the discussion poage a bit
dolfrog (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Disability Discrimination
The section Disability Discrimination includes a lot of different information despite a redirect to Ableism. My opinion is that the information should be rewritten to concisely identify the subject and its main points (as a WP:SUMMARY article), and transfer the relevant info to the main article. The main question I have is how something like "chronic back pain is felt by many" relevant in terms of discrimination? In my example, does it mean that people with chronic back pain are discriminated against?Twocs (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Friendism
Friendism is the belief that friendship is the primary determinant of how humans will judge others. It is often used against individuals who are not respected for any number of reasons. In the case of group friendism, certain groups may be denied rights or benefits, or get preferential treatment. Friend discrimination typically sees one person, or a group take the side of another, despite what may in fact be fair or just. Anybody or group can suffer from friendism.
Friedism can appear through many facets of the human race, from personal, all the way up to international conflicts. On the largest scale friendism can be used to describe how countries will support others almost solely based on their close location, previous dealings or treaties.
Friendism is something that most people deny, or dont consider an issue, much like racism thought the early 1900's. Typicaly these are peole who believe humans have now morally evolved to the point where we now live in a just and fair world. Typicaly these same people believe it is fair to judge people and thier views on the friendship they have with them, or to take sides on the basis they are just backing up thier friends.
Until friendism is recognized & accepted as unjust by the general population, it will infact be considered fair in many situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.125.198 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
