From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Limitation of meaning[edit]

The article starts by giving a couple of definitions of "prejudice", and then goes on to say "For the purposes of this article, which is examining prejudices within a single, overarching, theoretical framework, it is important to define the word as follows: . . .". Should not an encyclopedia article on "prejudice" be about prejudice in all its senses, not about a particular meaning of the word which has been selected by a particular writer? Or, to put it another way, what do the words "for the purposes of this article" mean? Surely the purpose of the article should be to deal with the whole topic. JamesBWatson 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Returning to this article 5 months after writing the above comment I see that

(1) further contributers have added related criticisms;

(2) no defence has been given of the given definition;

(3) the errors in the article remain;

(4) further inaccuracies have been introduced. For example:

"In its original usage, the word prejudice referred to a prejudgmental racial statement of ill doing . . . "

The word 'prejudice' had been in use for centuries before it came to be commonly interpreted in this limited way.

It seems to me clear that the whole article needs to be radically rewritten or deleted. It is clearly not an encyclopedia article about prejudice: much of it is plugging a particular view. As far as the definition is concerned, in view of the fact that there have been several criticisms raised and no defence proffered in several months, I have decided to replace it. However, I feel more needs to be done.

JamesBWatson 11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

the word prejudice means much more than this article's limited us. a prejudice is any unexamined belief. that "all men (and women) are created equal" or that democracy is good are both every bit a prejudice for most Americans as the belief among some that blacks are inferior or that Jews are greedy. more accurately, prejudices are unexamined traditional beliefs that one takes in with one's mother's milk.

[[Not only is this a limitation of meaning, it acknowledges that it is limited and even goes so far as to suggest that it is limited to a certain definition by design to fulfill an exclusive purpose. The wikipedia however is not a soapbox (See In it's present state this wikipedia entry is not only inadequate, but inappropriate and not in keeping with the wikipedia purpose and intent. DavidSAustin 12:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)]]

I am concerned with the term "minority" used in this definition selected by the writer: "Interpersonal hostility that is directed against individuals based on their membership in a minority group" Why are only "minorities" subject to prejudice - is this an opinion of the writer?

Certainly many American blacks are prejudiced against whites, many Asian-Americans against black and white Americans, many Jews against gentiles. in each of these examples, it is minorities who are prejudiced against the majority, or in the case of Asian-American or Jewish-American prejudice against blacks one smaller minority group is prejudiced against a larger group that is not itself a majority.

this whole article is tendentious and simple-minded.

Websters defines the word "Prejudices" as follows:

1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics (Chrisgray13247 15:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Prejudice- Can (Theoretically) be a defensive mechanism of society on miro and macro levels. It's used to publicly condemn/approve doings toward society, as if a similar 'descendant' is equally prone to committing the original injustice/contribution related to past experience (for society). And when used in this way, it's as if it's become a method of quarantine to condemn/celebrate a source of action/moral/religion. As if what we see on the outside is relevant and able to be directly connected to what exists on the inside, and the accused are guilty because of associated symbols taken in by the senses that directly link to recognizable patterns, in relation to experiences.

[The base definition given in the opening sentence is misleading; prejudice is not an opinion formed without 'facts' it is an opinion formed without recourse to reason; for example, falling in love is a prejudicial action, but that makes the situation no less factual. Unfortunately there is a tendencies in our post-enlightenment age to presume rational and factual are the same when there is actually scope for difference. (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]

National Origin[edit]

What is prejudice based upon national origin called? I didn't see it mentioned in the article at all, which is kind of interesting. KellyCoinGuy 00:50, September 10, 2005 Lol

National origin? The 'lies' within prejudice probably started in the catholic,barbarian and greek times.


The Sneetches was listed as an allegory for anti-Semitism. This is unsourced, so I'm changing it to a more limited claim of racism. Feel free to change it back if a source is found. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


The Anatomy of Prejudices by Elisabeth Young-Bruehl Can we put a list of literature on the mainpage? Austerlitz 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to include the book  "the ontology of prejudice", which practically refutes Young-Bruehl.

"Discrimination" of obese people?[edit]

User librarianlol has added the claim that obese people are subject to discrimination, which is not illegal in many countries. What kind of discrimination are you thinking of? Could you perhaps clarify with a few examples in this discussion? Thanks. 15:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

...and ginger people, short people, tall people, thin people, stutterers, mutterers, whitterers, titterers, the old, the young, those inbetween... let's face it, it's the start of a very very long list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that there are lots of prejudices, just as there are lots of stereotypes. It doesn't need to be illegal to be prejudice.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


The article contains numerous colloquialisms and even some non-sentences. Some of this may be old vandalism. A thorough copyedit is needed! Kbk 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "reacial" in the first sentence of the article? Is this a misspelled word? If so, what is the word that the writer intended? 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


I got rid of the indentation on the first section of the article, i just forgot to login first, because if you do the indentation, the words in the paragraph just goes on in one straight line, so don't do that anymore. I'll fix the rest up for you. Eisenhower 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Links Links Links[edit]

I added numerous links to this, hope it's alright, worked quite a bit on this. I added about 3/4 of the links you see now. Eisenhower 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Focus on the Real Meaning of Prejudice[edit]

I have to second the need for a re-write (although it appears that many changes have been made since earlier comments). In particular, it should be stressed very clearly that prejudices are basically opinions arrived at before a sufficient investigation has been made, that they are not necessarily incorrect, and that they are something very different from discrimination (although, certainly, prejudices may affect the way discrimination is made).

Consider e.g. the heading "Examples of prejudice in fiction": Currently, none of the three examples are necessarily examples of prejudice. The "To Kill a Mockingbird" (disclaimer: I go by the description, having never gotten around to reading the book) example is of an incorrect conviction, which may or may not be rooted in prejudice, but hardly is a typical example (although, admittedly, a pre-judgement in court is a good literal interpretation of prejudice). "Gattaca" is off the mark entirely, because the feeling that genetically engineered humans are superior to "random products" has a strong scientific basis within the framework of the movie: They are physically stronger, live longer, are more intelligent, etc. (on average). Notably, the protagonists success is founded in raw determination which allows him to overcome his weaknesses compared to e.g. his brother and colleagues. The world of "Gattaca" can be accused of unfair discrimination, but not really of prejudice. Finally, looking at "X-men", prejudices do play a part; however, the main factor is simple fear: Normal humans are afraid of mutants, and their fear leads them to act negatively. (Or in the words of the venerable Yoda, seeing that we discuss pop culture: Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.) True, prejudices may play in here, be caused by the fear, or contribute to the fear; however, everything considered, they are a comparatively minor issue. (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

May 28th, 2009 edits[edit]

Removed nonsensical words ("lokirestricted") and semantically inadequate portions of introductory paragraph. Light copy-editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Does the picture really show prejudice, per se? Bathroom technology was piss-poor in that era, and varied wildly across national borders due to the insane disparities of wealth and differentiation of culture. At most, it's an example of stereotyping. (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm stumped by the picture too. I've removed it. Twas kinda gross too. Maybe that was the purpose? It's more suitable for Disgust or something like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal meaning[edit]

I don't know about the USA or the rest of the English-speaking world but here in the United Kingdom the word 'prejudice' whilst having the commonplace meaning as describebd in the article also, and far more importantly, has the much older 'normal' usage enshrined in law.

The idea of legal prejudice crops up daily in the law courts and has nothing to do with ones views about minorities etc. It is I think this legal usage (pre-judice - pre-law) which should be given most prominence in this article, followed by other uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting study about prejudice.[edit]

Here you are: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


The second half of the introduction is particularly weak. There are sentence fragments whose intended meaning I can't quite parse, and many statements are uncited. Can someone with more expertise clean it up?

Well, as far as someone with more "expertise," I am not that. But I did add a citation for the last sentence. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if it's right. I would appreciate if someone could make sure I didn't miss something vital.
I'm not sure the introduction is as weak as you say it is, since I actually liked it, and thought the last sentence was a good way to end it. But then again, perhaps edits have taken place since the time you posted on the talk page. JasperTECH 02:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasperTech (talkcontribs)

Repeated insertion of material in lead by IP editor[edit]


Prejudice can be divided into two general subgroups: institutional and individual. Institutional prejudice refers to discriminatory practices and policies in large institutions, and individual prejudice refers to prejudice feelings and discriminatory behaviors exhibited by an individual. According to the Tripartite Model of Attitudes, the "ABC's" of attitudes refer to affect, behavior, and cognition; for our ppurposes here, this translates to prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes, respectively.

has been removed by two editors and reinserted by an IP editor. It's too specific for the lead in my opinion and doesn't reflect material in the article per WP:LEAD. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I obviously concur with you. Thanks for also keeping an eye out. Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition of the Weapon Identification Experiment[edit]

I decided to add this into the article because I felt it was an important experiment that showed the prevalence of prejudice and stereotyping. Although this article does do a great job defining prejudice and its subtopics, I felt that this experiments shows that these actually exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheetah6666 (talkcontribs) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cheetah6666. Thanks for your recent contribution, however, you will see that I did choose to revert it. I did so because I had the following concerns:
  • The relevance of the contribution was unclear. ‘Prejudice’ was only mentioned once in the paragraph, and even then the link between the described research and prejudice was not made explicit.
  • Even if the content is relevant, the present coverage may still be undue weight. This is a general encyclopaedic article on prejudice. To include the details of a particular series of experiments requires significant rationale. Often it is better to make the theoretical point (using secondary sources if possible) and then briefly point to the supporting evidence.
  • There were some more general citation issues. For example, there were some significant claims made without supporting references.
  • The passage was jargon heavy. Remember that the audience is not social science students. Introducing concepts like ‘ego-depletion’ and ‘stroop task’ without definition is not going to be elucidating for a lay audience.
  • There is a high degree of redundancy here. Much of the paragraph focusses on stereotyping, which is covered elsewhere. Moreover, that other article already introduces the weapon identification paradigm.
Importantly, I do not mean to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. I simply hope that you consider this feedback before reposting to this article (or other articles). In fact, I look forward to seeing your future contributions. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for article[edit]

I feel as if the article was informative about what prejudice is and what causes people to have prejudice against different groups. I like the fact that the article talked about different types prejudice such as gender,racism, and social status.I think what would make the article better is if there is more information given about different studies to show what tends to make people prejudice in different situations or in general. For example what did the experimenters find when attempting to prove white supremacy and how did they conduct the study. I would also like the article to explain how can the media cause prejudice towards different groups and how we tend to continue this cycle through out history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholder (talkcontribs) 21:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The definition of prejudice[edit]

"forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case" and "judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics" are both mutually exclusive. If I know the person's gender, social class, age, disability, etc. then that counts as a "relevant fact of a case"(Someone's sex is a fact, so is his age, disability, etc., and such broad categories are almost certainly relevant). If I do not know the person's gender, social class, etc. then by definition I cannot be prejudiced against him/her. If the definition should say "becoming aware of **all** the relevant facts or a case" then everyone is being prejudiced, all the time, because it's impossible to know all the "facts". (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's your feeling that English words are never used in more than one sense and that sometimes those senses aren't perfectly consistent with one another?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)