Talk:Ageism

Bias
The introduction is definitely pro-youth by more than 2:1. Nine lines describe ageism of the young against the old, and twenty-one lines describe ageism of the old against the young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseman2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Specific case: Steele
has edit warred for the inclusion of a specific case, Steele v. Mattis in US federal court. It's not clear why that specific case needs to be mentioned or why it should be covered in such intricate detail.

Since this editor has not edited other pages and is a WP:SPA, WP:COI and/or WP:COATRACK appear clear. I've removed it and I think we should understand why it should be included before it is added a third time. Toddst1 (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing
— Assignment last updated by NavyBear314 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Some questions about this article
1. Definition.

The article defines ageism as follows:

> Ageism is a bias against, discrimination towards, or bullying of individuals and groups on the basis of their age.

Who is to say that this is the correct definition? I mean to use this article as a specific example in order to understand general Wikipedia editorial policy.

For example, what if someone were to say, “the definition in the article should reflect common use of the term”. I think this would imply non-normativity and pure descriptivity, in deciding on a definition. I am curious if that idea is consistently upheld across Wikipedia articles. For example, what if someone attempted to write an article defining a word that is currently considered a slur? I.e., “A [slur here] is [implied definition of slur term based on common usage by people who use the term]”. Does this mean that there is indeed normativity in what is considered the “correct”, “proper” or “appropriate” definition of a concept, for a Wikipedia article?

If so, what other principles are to be observed, other than “common usage”? Someone on a philosophy forum once said to me that two major types of definition are lexical vs. real: lexical definitions analyze and present how a word is used; real definitions aim to characterize the essential properties of some thing. I also read Wikipedia recommends disambiguating concepts into multiple articles. In light of these two ideas, maybe this article can be separated into a number of sub-aspects it contains.

For example, I find the most broad use of the suffix “-ism” to be “a phenomena associated with”, “the doing of”, or “a doctrine associated with”. “Masochism” is apparently named after a person called “Masoch” who wrote novels about sexual activities involving voluntary physical pain. Thus it seems to mean, “Doing like Masoch”, or, “the general phenomenon of doing like Masoch”, or, “the doctrine or theory relating to doing like Masoch”.

“Feminism” is similarly “a doctrine or theory related to femininity”, or, “an activity related to that doctrine”. It is commonly taken to mean, “a doctrine which analyzes feminity and is positively oriented towards femininity in some way (for example, by seeking to improve the status of females)”.

”Racism” is often taken to mean, “holding a false belief about a particular race”. But compared to the use of the “-ism” suffix above, we can consider that it could more generally mean, “any phenomena associated with race, in some way”; or even, “a doctrine that analyzes race and is positively oriented towards it; ie, seeking the improve its status in some way”. I once read an article which said “Racism is the idea that people have races.”

Thus:

- Ageism could be false beliefs regarding a class of people who share a certain age.

- But it could be more broadly, anything to do with the idea of age at all; for example, the idea that we have something called “an age”.

- Or it could be some kind of theory or social movement promoting the concept of age.

So, how do we decide what the Wikipedia article should say “ageism” is? If we merely take a census of how it is used in public discourse, are we sure we did not miss out on certain other uses than the ones in the current definition? If none are to be found, what is stopping someone from writing an article with a new definition of “ageism”, forcing the Wikipedia article to acknowledge that other use of the term? And if the editors reject a certain definition from being mentioned in the article, by what principle? If the article is to focus on a thing rather than a word, are there any Wikipedia principles stopping someone from claiming “ageism” actually refers to many different distinct things, and should be split into articles for those accordingly?

To make this more concrete, consider if I changed the first line of this article to:

- “According to an APA article by Kirsten Weir, ‘ageism’ is ‘discrimination against older people because of negative and inaccurate stereotypes’.”

- “Ageism is a word that is used variously by different people. Person X says “…”, whereas person Y says “…”.”

- “Ageism is any phenomenon that has to do with age. For example, it could be the social phenomenon of associating people with “an age”. It could be a behavior associated with a particular age (like a “mannerism”). It could be a social movement related to age in some way, positively or negatively oriented.”

What does Wikipedia policy have to say about this? Which of the above is most “Wikipedia”? If we are supposed to take a census of “quality sources” and try to summarize what they have in common, does this defer the question to “Then what is a ‘quality source’?”

Julkhamil (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)