Talk:Discrimination

"Bigotry" currently redirects to this article. Isn't "bigotry" a synonym of "prejudice" instead of "discrimination?" Jarble (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Prejudice is a much better target than this article. Sjö (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Meters (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

The redirect target was moved from Prejudice in 2022 by user:Altanner1991 with the summary "Discrimination would be a much better redirect: it is a stronger term and more closely aligns with the concept as a synonym". I don't agree with the rationale behind that summary and move. Meters (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now moved. Sjö (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You are correct. It is closer to prejudice. Thank you for the correction and I offer my apologies. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Whatever bigotry truly is, it results in an (arrogant) expression of intolerance.

Prejudice is habitually making judgement on a subject before accumulating relevant knowledge.

Neither of these terms are synonymous.

Unlike the other two terms which come about from flaws, discrimination is actually used to refer to an imperative and generally healthy aspect of humanity as we know it. In general, discrimination should not be conflated with judgement.

This article is specifically about "prejudicial treatment", or treatment arising from discrimination of ideas about how someone 'ought' to be treated within your worldview, without striving to be respectful of reality and later discriminating based upon an accurate perception of reality.

There is no exact word in common use for "poor discrimination" that I know of, so it typically requires the addition of another word for more specific meaning - Ex: "Racial Discrimination". It may also make sense in highly suggestive context, such as topical discussion of civil rights violations (United States) but again, the introductory understanding of context for the situation arises from written language such as 'discrimination on the basis of'. This includes discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, and so forth. StuckMuck (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 12 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mehakdeepkaur001, Paramdeep1313.

— Assignment last updated by Pichaudhary (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current lists of examples are groups that are widely accepted as being valid, while still facing significant prejudice. Should it also include groups that are less well accepted and have a stigma associated with them? Or is this something that can only be evaluated if/when they are accepted. For example, if one openly admits to being a Nazi, one may find that they would receive some unfavorable treatment, even if they did nothing that would be in line with what the group they identify with is known for. I was unable to find a discrimination test one could use to evaluate if an action against a group qualifies. While creating categorization theories is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, I would think a minimally sufficient test to include something along the lines of "One who would receive unfavorable treatment if but for the group they associates if the group has open association."

I think the current list of examples is bias towards non-extreme progressive movements. Giving the indication that the term is in line with their views. Or if the term is on its face is a progressive movement associated term it should be stated as such. Subanark (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Attestation in reliable sources is the criteria for being weighed into an article to achieve neutral point of view Please provide reliable sources for inclusion or to support your position, because neutral point of view is not "no point of view". Remsense诉 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess the issue is that conservate groups by their nature of resisting change, any group would need to be one that previously was accepted, but not anymore. Those groups are usually a subclass of one of the currently listed ones, which hides them from observation of the reader.

Conservatives themselves is an example though, as simply using that label will polarize attitudes. Maybe that would be enough? https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433259-poll-republicans-more-likely-to-see-a-lot-of-discrimination.

Or I could add the more generic label discriminations that shows, though a study, merely by having a label, discrimination can occur: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6726232/ Subanark (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discrimination is a complex and controversial topic where scientific consensus is that there does not exist one universally acclaimed definition. What is perceived as discrimination depends on cultural, political and historical context. Also what is deemed as discrimination in common everyday talk, what is legally considered as discrimination and the scientific scope differs, although they overlap. Against this background, should the lead of the article not more neutrally reflect the complexity of the subject and offer a more broad definition, as for example there does not exist consensus of group attribution as a prerequisite for discrimination, either in the common sense or the scientific sense? FWIlkens (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised by the low interest to discuss this subject. Why is this? FWIlkens (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because you haven't cited any sources to substantiate your points, nor given any firm sense of where we would research them. Remsense ‥ 论 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply