Talk:Discrimination/Archive 1

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.)

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.

-

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)

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)

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)

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


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


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


 * Now it may be that that is the faulty part
 * I agree. Fuller's own description is "abuse, discrimination, or exploitation" . Tearlach 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


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

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)

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)

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 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)

Some Issues with this article.
I see a few issues with this article such as: --Cab88 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.


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

--Bruce Rosar 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was getting at was that say when one talks about "discriminating tastes" it carries with it a different connotation then if one referred to say "discriminating against black customers". Though on reconsideration, I think mention of this distinction is probably not an extremely important to this article as I first thought. --Cab88 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Most dictionaries use a positive definition of discrimination as simply "deciding wisely between possibilities" as their first defitinition and the negatively charged one later. I also believe the negative definition is the later, subsidiary one. 64.12.116.70 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the article itself: This article is about discrimination in the social science sense. For the act of distinguishing/discriminating between things see distinction, difference, comparison --Bruce Rosar 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

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

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.

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 &para; (AMA) 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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 &para; (AMA) 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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 &para; (AMA) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: , 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)

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)

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 and give the idea of including the poor as a major victim of discrimination. : Albion moonlight 06:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Change article title to "Discrimination (against)"
(162.84.184.38 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Discriminating against "ugliness"
This article is lacking on that topic. 199.117.69.8 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 for details". This would be much like the disclaimer at the top of the British folk rock 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 &para; (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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

What's with the strangely different title for sexuality and gender identity (and why are they lumped together)
I have a bit of a problem with the title of one of the sections. There is "Race discrimination", "Age discrimination", "Gender discrimination" etc. etc., which is all fine. Then there is a title that seems out of place: "Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and gender variant people" I am by no means saying that there isn't discrimination against those groups, or that is shouldn't be on the page. I have an issue with the title ...which seems, quite frankly, to be a subtle example of what it deals with, as the groups get a different treatment. In my opinion, it should be divided into the two titles of "Sexuality discrimination" and "Gender identity discrimination". This would be more in line with the rest of the page, and would be more proper, in my opinion. It would also force some information about Gender identity discrimination to be included, which at current it isn't, despite being mentioned in the title. (btw, the terms sexism, rascism, ageism and all that, but no equivalent for sexuality. That is strange.)--213.113.53.13 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Selective and inconsistent definitions are a big part of what makes this article a POV mess
There are many scopes of definitions of discrimination. The broadest is the act of giving weight to any factor in making any decision. The narrowest is that which is, on a widespread basis, legally defined and prohibited discrimination, and is the type of discrimination that is viewed negatively on a widespread basis. The definition used in this POV mess changes even between sentences in the lead. The first sentence in the lead is close to the middle of the road. But then I see people fighting to keep out coverage of types of discrimination (such as affirmative action and other types of "reverse" discrimination) which clearly fall under that definition. Whoever made this obviously wanted to "make a statement" by, though it's wording, to consider it to be about negative types of discrimination, and then make their statement by including what they want to say is negative types and excluding covering the types of discrimination that they personally consider to be good (e.g. "affirmative action")   What a POV mess this article is! North8000 (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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 agree with Uncle Ed's suggestion of two separate articles, but in the meantime perhaps there should be a re-write of the first sentence. Instead of "Discrimination is a sociological term referring" I suggest "discrimination as a sociological term refers". Perhaps even a new sentence in the introduction which directly addresses that it's not merely a sociological word? --Dekker451 (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2010 (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)

I completely agree with murmc7. As a scientist in sensory processes and perception, it is disconcerting to use the term in a talk and have half the audience do a double-take when I use the word "discriminate" in its original, literal, technical (and neutral) sense. That is, the original definition is NOT just the "jargon" of science, it is also the first and literary definition of the term. I won't speculate on the causes or intentional motives for the perversion of original meaning, but only say that this article should be relabeled "Social Discrimination" or, possibly, "Negative Social Discrimination" or, even, "Negative Prejudicial Discrimination" to properly identify the contents of the article that follows and to allow users of Wikipedia to DISCRIMINATE between it and the normal, original definition of the term. (Editorial comment - M.L.K. dreamed of a time when all would be judged by their character, not color, and that involves more discrimination, not less - in the first meaning of that term. That is, only the blind would not discriminate between light and dark skin, but only a racist would stop at that first perception and not go on to discriminate between those with good and those with bad character.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2010 (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)

General
I think that that the June 9th reversion of the June 9th edit was in order, but calling the change that it reverted "vandalism" was not. Aside from assume good faith and wp: Please do not bite the newcomers there was nothing vandalistic about it, and had evidence of a  sincere effort by an inexperienced editor, who even gave their name. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Change and reversion on reverse discriminaiton
While the material which I reinserted (via reversion) has some issues needing resolution to bring it up to Wiki standards, that situation is no different than 90% of this POV-mess of an article which could be easily be deleted by Wikipedia standards. The few statements in the article like this can provide the seed for more balanced coverage of this topic, the beginning of a rescue from the article's current POV-mess status. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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 bums will be treated fairly and buy them houses. 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.

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.

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.

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.

This article is POV and should be deleted
as should the whole biased series on "discrimination". 17:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As spelt out at the top of the page, this is a vital article. Why do you think it should be deleted? I don't agree at all by the way and believe this article should be kept. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for the poster from June, but it could be that they just wanted to emphasize how badly POV'd the article is rather than seriously suggest deleting it. See the section I added to the bottom of the talk page "Does this article need a section about how it itself practices discrimination?"    North8000 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Name change: merge with "bigotry"
I believe bigotry is a better name, as it avoids the confusion between the two senses of discrimination: "discrimination against" and "discriminating between". Gregcaletta (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that discrimination has a zillion meanings / definitions.  That is what opened the the door to this article becoming the POV mess that it is.  Certainly in some cases bigotry and discrimination overlap, but IMHO that's about it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually the point I was trying to make. The word "discrimination" has several meanings, so it should not have an article for itself, but much of the material in this article could be moved to the "bigotry" article.  Gregcaletta (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that you are right. For a moment I thought that there should be a disambiguation page for "discrimination", but now I think not.....that would create a new set of dilemmas. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You could have a disambiguation page that directs to pages like "distinction" and "bigotry". I'm fairly disappointed to see that there is an entire series labelled "discrimination" which is essentially a collection of "isms".  And there is even a portal for "discrimination".  I think the name "bigotry" is a better name for a list of "isms" and the portal as well, but it looks like this is going to be harder to change than I thought.  There appears to be a whole community here on WIkipedia who have grabbed on to this confusing and euphemistic label.  Gregcaletta (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My "Selective and inconsistent....." section above expresses my thoughts on the word in this article. Racapping the one point, the way that this got derailed into the soapbox/ POV mess that it is is that they kind of chose one definition, kind of going like this:
 * "let's say that "discrimination" only refers to "bad" discrimination, and then I will decide which types of "discrimination" are "bad", and list those choices in the article"
 * Any fixing of this article would need start by addressing the various definitions.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Arranged with the originator of this request that it should be closed with no action. See also two oppose comments at Talk:Bigotry (the merge tag directed discussion to that talk page not here). Mirokado (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Dicrimination: a hijack
Doing a computer search on discrimination has proved my view, that the word has been hijacked for sociological use. Even dictionaries often ignore its other meanings. In sociology dicrimination is not only the recognition of differences between different groups in society, but also treating these groups differently. In optics recognising that what we see is two different objects or two object of different colour are different individuals is also our ability of discrimination, or the ability of an instrument to differenciate. One example I dug up is Discrimination of Human Hairs Using Color Measurements and Digital Microscopy [] used in forensic science. Is it not time that we recognised this by creating a separate page for Discrimation (sociology) and a separate page for a list of all applications of the word? LouisBB (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO an article needs to be on a topic, and a mix of totally different meanings of a word would not be that. North8000 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so having a page merely discussing the different meanings of the word "discrimination" is not appropriate for wikipedia. As North8000 says, this article needs to be on a topic, not a word. If there is enough to say about the non-sociological meanings of the word "discrimination", then each of those meanings should have its own separate page, and we can have a disambiguation page to guide people to them. If the only meaning of "discrimination" that has enough to say about it to warrant its own article is the sociological meaning, then we only need one article on Wikipedia, one on that sociological meaning, and thus no disambiguation page, and thus that one page on the sociological meaning should be at this title ("Discrimination"). For all other meanings, we can refer people to wiktionary.

So I suggest that for the time being this article be agreed to focus on the sociological sense of discrimination as "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality; prejudice; bigotry" (from Wiktionary link above, sense 3), with a Wiktionary box template added to direct people to there for other meanings... or, I guess, a hat note like we have now. If someone else wants to create well-sourced encyclopedic articles on other senses of the term "discrimination", then once those exist we can move this page to "Discrimination (sociology)" and make "Discrimination" itself a disambiguation page.

As for a merger to "Bigotry", it appears from looking at the two articles that bigotry is about the mental element of thinking about people on the basis of class or category, whereas "Discrimination" is about the physical element of actively treating people differently on such a basis. However, Wiktionary gives "prejudice" as a synonym of both, and we have a third article here on Wikipedia which is about prejudice, and also attempts to cover briefly cover discrimination in the sociological sense. I'm not sure yet whether mergers are appropriate, but certainly at least these three articles, and possibly others, need to be coordinated with each other. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * With a couple a clarifications I agree with you 100%. The main clarification is that the main variable definitions within the main definition of this article should be explored and covered.   IMHO this is the only way to rescue this article. Right now 95% of it has been hijacked by people imposing the following way of thinking:


 * Only stuff that I consider to be bad shall be allowed to be called "discrimination".
 * I decree that all discrimination is bad
 * Only things that I consider to be bad shall be allowed to be listed as types / examples of discrimination.


 * So, I decree, a scholarship only available to white people is discrimination. A scholarship only available to black people is not discrimination.


 * In reality, there are widely rejected types of discrimination (e.g. based on race) widely accepted forms of discrimination (e.g. prohibition of child molesters from running day care centers, or prohibition of men from going into the women's public bathroom), and types of discrimination where there is not an agreement (prohibition of homosexual or 3 person marriages). The article should cover these complexities. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Speciesism?
Maybe this is a minor niggle, but according to your definition of Discrimination ("...treatment taken towards a person...") and according to your definition of 'person' in the article of that title, Speciesism doesn't belong here. Due to the way wikipedia is edited, I don't know if consistency is something you aim for, but it seemed worth mentioning.


 * The definition given at Person is faulty. Persons are not necessarily humans. We're working on fixing that article; any suggestions on its talk page there are welcome. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the definition of Person has been changed. The targets of speciesism (pets, livestock, pests) aren't rational, don't have moral duties, and may or may not have rights. So Speciesism still doesn't belong here.


 * According to the article on Speciesism, that word's coiner sure considered it a form of discrimination: "I use the word 'speciesism'," he wrote in 1975, "to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species ... Speciesism is discrimination, and like all discrimination it overlooks or underestimates the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against." (c&p from aforementioned article).
 * That aside, I think it's clear that speciesism could sometimes be discrimination against persons (e.g. if Great Apes are persons, and we discriminate against them); but that it's not always (as you say, pets, livestock, etc). The very fact that we're asking about whether this discrimination is against a person or not seems to indicate that personhood is not intrinsic to the definition of discrimination; you could, in principle, discriminate against non-persons. Perhaps just replace 'person' in the lede with 'individual'? Seems to solve the problem. I'll do it now, anyone who contests can revert... --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Singer certainly intended Speciesism to be a form of discrimination. However, his entire point was to present it as discrimination against non-persons. Any rigorous definition of personhood is going to be the tool that justifies the discrimination, as I read him. It seems odd to fix the problem by replacing the word 'person' with a word that 99% of readers will see as a synonym, but I admit I don't see a better option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.230.77 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Preoccupations and chronology
It seems to me that two sections on sex-related discrimination is an unwarranted preoccupations with it, particularly since the word is 'geneder'.

Perhaps it would also be a good idea to deal with the subject chronologically to show how different forms of discrimination were realised over time. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination against the "ugly"
It seems to me that "uglyism" should be included in a series on discrimination. People are more likely to discriminate on the basis of looks than anything else: Infants look more at prettier care givers (common knowledge); In Canada, the difference in wages between a statistical ugly man and a handsome one is 30% (versus, 15% for women) (according to an Economist article). Again: Since it is the most prevalent form of discrimination, it MUST be included. For an article, see BBrown 16:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ... "Uglyism"? That's not really a very good term. Partially due to the low brow word, but also because... It's like saying discrimination against women should be called "feminism". Discrimination based on sex, isn't called "feminism", "womanism", "manism" or anything like that. It's called "sexism". For looks, something like "lookism" (though with a better word, instead of look), would be more appropriate--213.113.53.13 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You make quite a valid point. I think that even just "Appearance" should appear as a category in this article (of which there can be an ugly subset). For instance, men with beards are denied employment in some militaries, police forces, etc. That definitely seems like discrimination to me, and we've all heard about some airlines only hiring pretty flight attendants. Hell, if two people had the exact qualifications I'd probably hire the person who's looks appeased me more. See also this group which aims to fight "appearance" discrimination. 75.119.244.112 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Does this article need a section about how it itself practices discrimination?
The article is discriminatory in that it seeks to define discrimination as including only the currently-unfashionable forms. All of the major sections on anti-white, anti-christian, against anyone who feels that homosexuality is wrong, anti-male etc. sections are missing. The few rare mentions (such as the section on affirmative action as discrimination are POV'd / denigrated by adding "have been criticized" type wording, while the other types are presented as unchallenged fact. Until these POV problems are fixed, maybe we need a section on how this "discrimination" article practices discrimination?   :-) North8000 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has a whole section devoted to reverse discrimination. Sexism already mentions anti-male and religious discrimination already mentions anti-christian. As for your statement on those who feel homosexuality is wrong, those who feel homosexuality is wrong can't be discriminated againist as they are not a sociological group however heterosexuals can in rare cases be discriminated againist.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, my "remedy" was tongue-in-cheek, but I stand by my criticism. Speaking of which, I think that you saying that sexual preference defines a "sociological group" but views on sexual preference does not is discrimination.  :-).  Also, more generally speaking, discrimination can be against with those with certain belief sets, behaviors, lifestyles, income levels,  and other attributes.  These are not what would normally be called sociological groups so application of such a criteria  to avoid recognizing such as discrimination is not right. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You are confusing the sensory definition of discrimination with the sociological definition. If what you were saying was true it would be discrimination to put child molesters in jail. And by the way everyone has a right to believe in anything. I have the right to believe that being Christian is wrong or even that this world is run by aliens. But if I actually use this view and not just state it then I am being discriminatory. For example said employer A can hate all homosexuals. He is looking for a new employer. Only one man potential employee B applies. Employer A has a right to not like employee B but not to deny him the job just because he is gay. That is discrimination. We have the right of free speech in this United States. However, always remember that your speech has consequences. If you've ever taken a class on the constitution you will know that you are able to believe or practice what you want and the country protects you from not be allowed to do so. It does not protect you from reactions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your last few sentence but IMHO consider the first 2/3 of what you wrote to be quite mixed up.
 * Putting a child molester in jail IS discrimination against that behavior. But is a widely and officially accepted and even legally mandated discrimination.
 * At the other end of the spectrum.....in the US, prohibiting blacks from entering a building based on race is obviously also discrimination, but it is also widely rejected type of discrimination, and legally prohibited discrimination.
 * The ones in between are where culture wars are being fought and where double standards occur.  Within that dispute range, it sounds like you are trying to promulgate terminology that says that politically correct discrimination is not discrimination, and politically incorrect  discrimination IS discrimination. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok this will make it easy now. Sensory discrimination is sensing the difference in something. Sociological discrimination is discrimination based on status within a certain group. The sociological definition is only used when refering to specific protected groups. Also, I please ask you to refer to it as sexual orientation, sexual identity, or sexuality. I find sexual preference offensive. Now of course I can't stop you from using that terminology but I do ask you please stop. Sociology discrimination refers to unfair treatment and is part of the study of Conflict Theory in that one group or multiple groups or advantaged over other groups. Religion is allowed to be practiced anywhere at anytime when it does not injustly violate someone else rights. Also, never forget that your religion is the one of the only groups where it is proven you choose which identity you have. Some people would argue others but religion is the only one that is always chosen unless it is forced upon someone which is discrimination as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to honor your request on terminology.    You used two different definitions for sociological discrimination; one defined/limited to protected groups, the other uses "unfair treatment".   Who decides what is "unfair"  My overall complaint is against artificial constructions that try to justify a double standard regarding discrimination. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to unjustifiably combine the definition of sociological discrimination and sensory discrimination. In other words you believe that anyone can be discriminated againist for anything. What I'm saying is that it has historically been and will always be sociology which decides who fits into the limited form of discrimination. The broad form is already addressed at the top of the article. Although Law, Anthropology, and Psychology are getting increased attention on the subject but usually discrimination is considered to be againist those who have little or no choice in what they are and religious labels not the beliefs themselves. Religion is still limited by law. Rastafarians have no more access to drugs than any other group even though it is a part of their faith. Same with Native American spirtuality or Theistic Satanists. The only religion that are "arguably" not chosen are ethnoreligious ones like Judaism which even then they will usually say I'm Jewish by ethnicity and ______ by practice.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that we'll need to agree to disagree. What you see as (a) fundamental definition(s) I see as a faulty construction used to justify a double standard. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, by the definition which you implied (little or no choice), many of the types listed in this article would need to get removed.   The fact that they are in and others are not is more of such discrimination being practiced by the article. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe
Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't monarchy a form of discrimination
Differentiating between people of the same nationality based on 'birth' seems to be a discriminatory concept. Why should a function such as head of state be exclusively reserved for one family and all the rest be denied on no other grounds than birth?

Since the American Civil War the term 'discrimination' generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category. So, membership of one particular family can get you something that you would be denied outright if not a member of said family.80.56.229.109 (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest reversion of edit on March 2, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discrimination&action=historysubmit&diff=416806620&oldid=416753611

A chunk of text was added onto the definition. The added text reads like a high school essay. I don't think it meets wikipedia standards, and it seems like it includes original research 184.166.26.1 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination anti-policy page needs source
Anti-discrimination law page needs to add source to "some consider affirmative action to be government-sanctioned reverse discrimination." and what is this page doing as a stub? There are 2 others it could fit in The Unbeholden (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of a sourced section
See this:. The material is sourced to an academic study as well as a major newspaper. Please explain reasons for removal.Miradre (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it is both relevant and sourced. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashkenazi Intelligence for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashkenazi Intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. This is also listed at WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Discrimination --Henriettapussycat (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Political Views Discrimination
Political views are rarely considered discrimination for various reasons. Among them are the fact that political views are a chosen facet and the fact that political views often discriminate. If you feel that discrimination between republicans and democrats is notable why not discrimination againist national socialists. And btw, if any politicial group deserves recognition for discrimination it would be communists not republicans. Also, overrepresentation does not necessarily equal discrimination. I see a huge overrepresentation of heterosexual people in colleges as well as cisgendered and christian people. Does that mean that the schools are homophobic, transphobic and religiously intolerant?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, first I didn't write or even contribute to the section, I just reverted the deletion of it.  I agree with your statement that "overrepresentation does not necessarily equal discrimination".   I also comment that that section looks more like a stub with just sidebar items as content.    And  while the "facts" in your last sentence can't conceivably be from real data, I agree with your point there which is again "overrepresentation does not necessarily equal discrimination".
 * From there on out I disagree with you.  Discrimination based on beliefs or political affiliation, certainly IS discrimination.    And there is an immense amount of coverage that overall there is anti-conservative discrimination in universities.  Anecdotal/example ones often they also discuss people who lose the jobs, promotions etc. etc. for not conforming with a left/PC orthodoxy, and there are also credible overview type sources.        (Although, of course not everywhere.  In some conservative Christian college, there is presumably anti-left discrimination.)  I've not seen much sourcing regarding communists and socialists, but where it's anti-conservative discrimination,and them being  being "left" philosophies, they are more likely to be in the group that's doing the discriminaiton rather than victims of it.


 * So IMHO, agree that that section is a low quality stub, but it needs building not elimination.   We don't want the discrimination article itself to be discriminatory.    :-)  North8000 (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a one sentence statement that is saying that overrepresentation equals discrimination. Thats not the case. I will delete it again unless something else is added to it.-24.17.115.213 (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to weigh in here and point out that it's a sourced NPOV statement and if you want it removed anonymous guy then i suggest you find a source that says otherwise/disputes this as arguments still need proof on Wikipedia and talk on a talk page will still only do so much without it.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The source dosn't even support what it is saying?-24.17.115.213 (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read through and the first source is almost a word for word match with the section you have a problem with.
 * It's NPOV in its current form.
 * Whether you disagree with or just don't like the statement the best advice i can offer is that you try to disprove it with reliable sources rather than just deleting it.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and not only npov, but should be included per the balancing provisions of wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made some additions to make the definition of political discrimination more inclusive by adding information about Anti-Israeli and Anti-Zionist actions on college campuses as well as information on Anti-Communism and Anti-Masonry in both Europe and the United States.
 * I think that anti-communism has varied between things that most would consider improper discrimination (e.g. McCarthy era) but also simply a (cold) war between two groups of countries. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with you but not fully. The Cold War itself is not of course discrimination but conflicts (physical or in the case of a cold war otherwise) can lead to disrimination. A great example is the discrimination that Arabs faced due to the 9/11 attacks. Even arabs in this country who were born here often faced discrimination. Was this due partially to a war? Absolutely. Does that make it any less discriminatory? Absolutely not. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Essentially there was some lack of information/knowledge...people considered communism all to be related to the group (including USSR) that wanted to take over the world.   But I guess that failure to learn the difference is itself a part of discrimination.  But we still can't categorically call everything anti-comminism to be discrimination....not that you are advocating that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not, a mere distate for the politics of communism, democracy, monarchism, republicanism, democraticism etc. is not discrimination. Treating someone different for their political status is. If I say I'm a communist (which I am) and I get someone who physically threatens me, fires me etc. thats discrimination. If someone says communism is not the right system or even downright wrong that is not. Thats why I disagree that overrepresentation in universities of democrats is not at all discrimination. Overrepresentation is only numbers. I still think that part should be removed. But I'm pretty sure people have other views.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My main leanings are libertarian,(but not the party) and I'm from the USA, so I guess we aren't going to the same political meetings. :-)  .  It occurred to me that it is a strength of the USA to take all of these things in and make them a part of itself. (with some notable blunders to the contrary along the way. )  I work a lot on folk music articles, and it occurred to me that with his communist associations (of the type he had), Pete Seeger was being much more American than the people who were persecuting him as being un-American.
 * Regarding the type of improvements that you are recommending, I also think that numbers do not per se constitute discrimination. I don't think that it would be too controversial to try to fix anything that says otherwise. But I think that the numbers at universities are an indicator of the actual situation, and there is probably a lot of quality sourcing to that effect.   And this article does have a "balance of flaws", so we can't go fixing just one side of the flaws. :-)   Other areas can be more complex, because the term has varying definitions, and people with vested interests in defining it in certin ways. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what kind of other changes are you suggesting we make? I'm open ears.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was more just commenting on what you said than suggesting more changes. I'd have to think more to answer your question. I guess one area (although I hate to open a can of worms) is greater exploration /coverage of the varying definitions of discrimination that relate to this.   In parts of the article the criteria for discrimination is discriminatory.  :-)     North8000 (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you are talking about. Much like the words gay or intercourse discrimination has shifted meaning. At one time gay meant happy, joyful or pleasant, then it meant homosexual, and finally it derived a deragatory use mostly among teenagers. Intercourse used to mean conversation. But usually when people say intercourse they are now refering to vaginal oral or anal sex. As for the word discrimination in rare circumstances it is still used in its archaic meaning but its most common use is inmproper treatment towards a group of people because they belong to that group of people. I think it would be benefitient if you made a disambiguation article about discrimination in the other sense. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What I was thinking about is that the definition is quite variable and so changeable according to POV. First there is the question of clearly good discrimination (i.e barring child molesters from running day care centers) and clearly bad discrimination (e.g. prohibiting blacks from eating in a restaurant).   And then there are definitions which say that "discrimination" only refers to bad discrimination, and that they get to pick which types are bad and thus considered to be discrimination.  For example, a college who says that their mission is to help further white people would be discrimination, and a college who says that their mission is to help further black people would not be discrimination. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand what you are saying now what do you want to do with it? Do you think that child molesters are being treated unfairly? Is that what you are saying? With the exception of religion and politics most people consider discrimination to be attacking someone for something they cannot control when they are not hurting anybody. Being Black, Jewish or Gay does not hurt anybody. Now religion and political party are also brought in. These are always protected as long as they don't discriminate againist other groups and often times even when they do. My point is that a child molester is clearly hurting someone. While a gay person who is having a same-sex consentual sexual or romantic and non-sexual relationship that they are not hurting anybody. Being Jewish for example does not hurt anybody. Does that make any sense? -07:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bad or good discrimination is still discrimination to someone.
 * Even your example of banning child molestors from running day care centres would be discrimination to the child molestor.
 * If you treat someone differently from another person then it's basically discrimination.
 * I think the guy before me was just trying to make the point that some discrimination is a benefit to society while other discrimination is just needless and harms people.

I disagree that discrimination is specifically about harm, and I would say it is more to do with inconveniencing and disadvantaging the victim. For example, the gay, disabled, Jewish or black person who gets many job interviews but who is never offered the job is more the subject of great (and unfair) inconvenience and disadvantage rather than harm. So, I would say discrimination is more about disadvantage and reduction of life opportunities. These can of course also be construed as forms of harm. My ten cents. cheers. Peter morrell 13:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary.com Discrimination n. definition 2 "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to whichthat person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination." This means attacking someone by their group NOT individual merit. If you punish a child molester that is based on individual merit of doing something bad NOT only their association within a certain group. If you can name another form of so-called good discrimination that is based on something other than individual merit then I would love to hear it but child molestation is clearly about merit.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like a discriminatory belief?
 * As in religion or KKK groups?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Groups that are considered as discriminatory including democrats (anti-semitism/anti-israeli sentiment) republicans (homophobia/islamophobia) and the KKK as well as religious groups are usually protected so long as they don't cross certain points. However attacking ones policies is not discrimination. If I say democrats are extremely antisemitic that is not discrimination. If I refuse to give a democrat a job or shoot them that clearly is. Its two completely different things.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, i follow.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say shooting a Democrat was discrimination however...unless you refused to shoot a Republican for balance anyhow.
 * You would be discriminating against living Republicans =]
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 10:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where this started was Rainbowofpeace asking me for suggestions on article evolution. Those examples I gave were not to say or target such as being problems in the article, they were just to illustrate that definitions vary, and that one widely promoted definition is along along the lines of "discrimination shall mean only bad discrimination, and I get to define which types are bad and which types are good". I was too vague about what my suggestion was; it was actually to expand the definitions section to explore the varying definitions, and then to reflect that in the lead. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above. Discrimination is only discrimination when it is againist a person for being a part of a group and SOLELY for being a part of that group. Child Molesters are not so called discrimianted againist because they are child molesters. They are attacked because that child molesters hurt children.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Rainbow but North8000 has a point there.
 * Good or bad discrimination is still discrimination.
 * Besides, expanding the definitions a little can't hurt and would be more beneficial.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also discrimination and punishment are two sides of the same coin in the case of child molestors.
 * They are discriminated against, but for the benefit of society and to protect others from them.
 * The same as keeping prisoners in prison is more punishment than discriminating against their right to be free.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok find a source online that says that it is discrimination againist child molesters. Almost everytime the word discrimination is used it is used as a negative term. I challenge you to find a source about positive discrimination againist child molesters.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Almost everytime the word discrimination is used it is used as a negative term."
 * You said it yourself, "Almost".
 * Discrimination is treating someone differently, and positive discrimination exists but still discriminates against someone.
 * I probably couldn't find a source for what you said, but a definition has already been provided and allowing someone to do something and not someone else the same thing is almost always discrimination Rainbow.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Then as stated above find an instance in which the word discrimination is used positively to refer to what you are claiming. You can't expand a definition without giving it practicaliy. According to wikipedia's policies you hold the burden of proof. So find a source that uses discrimination as a positive word.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the United Negro College Fund supporting only blacks. Some people would say that that is discrimination.   Others would say that it is not because what they are doing is good.  That is my point about varying definitions.  I didn't mean to say that people often use the word discrimination to mean good, I meant that there are varying definitions that mean that some people or groups will say it is not discrimination because they have personally decided that it is good.  North8000 (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Positive discrimination.
 * Also hiring women solely for being women into parliament, it discriminates against men and "the right person for the job" just to boost statistics.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh you were talking about reverse discrimiantion. That is already considered discrimination by many definitions. I thought it was already made clear that discrimination can in certain circumstances be againist people who are of the majority. I will gladly source reverse discrimination myself if thats what you want. However reverse discrimination is often times also considered bad so your point was lost in translation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually reverse discrimination is already covered in the article. You are still welcome to add to it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you see now?
 * If you hire only women to boost the amount in your organisation, then that is illegal because you discriminate against the men to do it.
 * If you create a fund to aid just one race then that is also positive discrimination in most cases.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The more correct term is reverse discrimination and the article already covers it fairly well. This however is NOT I repeat NOT the same as the supposed positive discrimination againist child molesters.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here we are seeing the variable definition of discrimination. And I picked an example from the dramatic end of the spectrum.   Also, quite often an individual's actions, choices, behaviors, beliefs etc. make them a member of a group, so where do you draw the line between an individual and a group? North8000 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both appear to be acceptable with the exact same meaning from "Ask Jeeves" and "answers.com".
 * I think it would be easier if you both pointed out what you want from this.
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 12:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't particular want anything, I was just responding to Rainbowofpeace's request for suggestions.  What I am suggesting is that we expand the definitions section to cover more of those definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So expand it to include reverse discrimination. However what you called positive discrimination above as discriminating againist child molesters in babysitting services will need to be sourced. If you can find one instance in which discrimination is used in a positive fashion to refer to needed requirements taken on a group that deserved it then take it. Whether you use child molesters, murderers, jay-walkers, adulters etc. I'm challanging you to find one source that uses the word discrimination in a positive way that is better for society. If you do this. I will gladly expand the definition for you. As for reverse discrimination I will include it.
 * That doesn't make sense since reverse discrimination IS positive discrimination.
 * Hiring women only because they are under-represented is positive discrimination and would be argued to be for the benefit of society by the people doing it.
 * There  J e n o v a  20 12:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go: "Barack Obama: Federally-Funded Religious Discrimination is Good"
 * http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/07/29/barack-obama-federally-funded-religious-discrimination-is-good.htm
 *  J e n o v a  20 12:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And another: http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/78051/when-discrimination-is-good.thtml
 *  J e n o v a  20 12:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely misread what I typed. Sometimes reverse discrimination is what North8000 would refer to as positive discrimination. However what is normally refered to as positive discrimination is only reverse discrimination. Their example about child molesters shows they are not thinking of reverse discrimination but trying to state that any differential treatment towards a group even when it is not negative is discrimination. I'm telling them that if they want to include it fine but they will have to source an instance where that has happened. In other words they have to find an instance in an article where punishment towards a group like child molesters, murderers, jay-walkers, adulters etc. is refered to as discrimination in a positive fashion. The part about reverse discrimination was added to the lead.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your articles do not support what I was asking for. I could find hundreds of sites (mostly hate sites) that say various forms of discrimination are good. But North8000 is not asking for examples where commmonly accepted forms of discrimination are considered good. They are asking whether certain forms of what they call discrimination in the terms of punishing child molesters be listed as discrimination in a positive fashion. Find an article that uses the word discrimination in a postive way as punishment for people who deserve it that is my challenge. People who deserve it include child molesters, murderers, jay-walkers, theives, rapists, adulters etc.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very POV though.
 * The fact that people who commit crimes can go to prison is an example that you are asking for.
 *  J e n o v a  20 13:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You would have to count being put on the sex offender register as a form of discrimination that is good then.
 * It restricts the freedoms of someone who has done something to deserve that punishment/discrimination.
 *  J e n o v a  20 13:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What North8000 is trying to do is to expand discrimination beyond race, gender, sexuality and disability etc. into areas which are not considered to be discrimination by most people. They are also stating that there is positive discrimination and their example is child molesters not being allowed to babysit. Find an example of the word discrimination being used to refer to "positive" discrimination againist someone who has done something wrong. That is what they originally asked for. If neither of you can do that then we will have to stick to reverse discrimination being the only thing added-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then find a source that calls that discrimination in a positve fashion-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find most people consider discrimination to be more than just race, gender, sexuality and disability anyway Rainbow. Depriving someone of something that someone else can have/get is discrimination with the definition of the word. Sending someone to prison would therefore agree with the definition as it deprives someone of a life outside prison but is just to everyone else. I will get a fourth opinion here just for the purpose of showing that. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination is not just differential treatment. It is differential treatment againist someone because of their status within a certain group. If I had twelve clones all exactly the same and I treated one differently (whether positivily or negativly) that would not be discrimination. What would I be discriminating againist them for? It would be differtial treament but not discrimination. Now you might be able to argue that the more archaic defintion of discrimination could fit that so then go to the top of the page and discuss that on the disambiguation page that brings you to the wiktionary definition of discrimination. You can also create an article on that other defintion of discrimination and create a disambiguation page to it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since I am not pushing for anything, I would be happy to either bow out or to continue discussing. My one example was a dramatic one for clarity. Here are some less dramatic ones which I think that some folks would call discrimination, and others would say that it is not because they feel that the action is good and thus not discrimination.


 * In academia, against those who present theories or evidence of gender-based differences in competences etc in certain areas, particularly if female is less than male in that particular area (professors lose jobs, students get flunked etc.)
 * Against smokers (often excluded from certain jobs)
 * Against persons who are against full societal normalization/acceptence of homosexuality as an ideal or norm. (tarred and feathered for being "homophobic" etc.)
 * Against those who have committed victimless sexual offenses (folks who streaked in college having to register for life as sex offendors etc. )
 * Against religious organizations (e.g. where other organizations can be contracted to supply services to govt. but religious ones can't)
 * Against christians in the USA. (deference given to other religions, but the opposite for their religion)
 * Hate crime legislation (the same action gets different levels of penalties)
 * Differential enforcement of "hate crime" legislation.

So the point is not that people would call these "positive discrimination", it's that some would would say they are not discrimination because they feel that the action is positive.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gender-based differences and showing that doesn't automatically equal expulsion. I actually wrote a paper about comparative gender in sports showing that men were by far stronger in physical strength but women were far better in flexibility and balance.
 * On smokers I can somewhat see your point.
 * On normalization/acceptance of homosexuality. That depends on how far you take it. Everyone has the right to an opinion. However Freedom of Speech protects your ability to say what you want not the reprecussions from it. If you get assaulted for stating anti-gay anti-black anti-Jewish etc. statements that will be considered an assault. Nothing more or less.
 * Victimless sexual crimes like streaking through a college is usually handled through expulsion and almost never ends up in a registration which requires either penetration or multiple offenses.
 * I don't understand the one about religious organizations.
 * Now I really dont get the Christian one. Holidays like Christmas and Easter are absolutely everywhere and almost every business cloeses. Meanwhile I'm begging my employer to let me get Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur off because that it is the holiest day of the year.
 * It is only considered a hate crime if the court is absolutely sure that ones status as a member of a protected sociological group was violated through discrimatory slurs or actions.
 * Your final point is not as notable as you think. For example Whites are the second most recorded and enforced racial hate crime after blacks. Followed by Asian and Native American. (This is in the United States FBI Hate Crime Statistics).

Just my two-cents.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One side note..that streaker item came from a news story I read few years ago that Alaska requires streakers to register as sex offenders for life.   Even retroactively....i.e. someone who did it 30 years ago now has to register.   I remembered that it stood up in court, and that's the last I heard....could have changed since then. North8000 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)