Talk:Bigotry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Requested move

bigotry should be the root article that describes the psychological concept, bigotry, and the usage of terms related to description of intolerance and prejudice.

[edit] Support (1)

  1. Support. Adraeus 12:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose (0)

[edit] Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] antibigotous ;) disambiguation

http://www.prenoms.com/nom-bigot/bigot.html

18 030 personnes sont nées en France depuis 1890, dans 48 départements, avec le nom Bigot Le nom Bigot figure au 232e rang des noms les plus portés en France.

Bigot is the 232rd most common family name in France according to this site and 18000 people were born with the name since 1890. So i'm using this as a scratch pad to prepare disambiguation (and no, AFAIK there are no people called Bigot in my family, though who knows...). Boud 17:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot

1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches. But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.


disambiguation template

Bigot can refer to:


top of bigotry page:

This page relates to the use of the word bigot to refer to a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. For various famous people called Bigot, see the disambiguation page Bigot.

[edit] what is not bigotry

communism, partisan, materialism, classism or rationalism are not bigotry! --tasc 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ideologies, philosophical systems and recently coined words are not bigotry. Pavel Vozenilek 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, they were staying in the list for more than a month... --tasc 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
No suprise. 2/3 of articles are on nobody's watch and number of vandals and crap flooders grows exponentially. Quality of Wikipedia goes down and unless improvements (read stable versions) will be implemented the project will sing down. Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own." That's pretty broad, and would include the aforementioned ideologies.
No, it will not. --tasc 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Think about it for a minute, it would. Viewpoint discrimination would fall well within that definition. If you really think that many communists aren't intolerant of other opinions or ideologies, might I suggest you crack a history book.  :^)
Exactly. COMMUNISTS are often bigots. COMMUNIST PEOPLE. But the ideals of Communism do not always include bigotry. You are confusing ideals with those who practice them. Just because a person believes his way of thinking is absolutely correct does not mean he does not tolerate the opinions of others. There are many Communist parties that debate and politicize with other parties and ideologies. Religiocentrism, fanaticism, and zealotry - terms that refer to intense religious belief and a religion-centered life and mind - do not inherently show bigotry or intolerance, and to say that they do is extremely POV and, ironically, prejudiced in itself. You cannot rationally assume that all religiocentric, fanatic, or ethnocentric people are prejudiced and intolerant. Take Jesse Jackson; I think most people would say he is not prejudiced, but he is extremely "caught up" on race; it is central to his thought process and his life. He is ethnocentric, but he is not a bigot by any means. These terms are not hand-in-hand with bigotry. There is a correlation, but it is innapropriate to list them as examples of bigotry. I'm going to remove them again, and it would be nice if you could actually discuss the changes or at least provide an explanation in the edit summaries. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't set up the history/edit summaries up to make it look like you are simply reverting a vandal, kplzthx. Karwynn 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
well, they are included in see also section, they are not listed as an example of bigotry. I'm going to add them again, and it would be nice if you could actually duscuss it before removing. Fanatism, zealotry are bigotry by definition. You could argue about etnocentrism or religocentrism, but first two are so obvoious. -- tasc talkdeeds 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
By whose definition? Certainly not by Wikipedia's. Look them up: zealotry is religion-related ambition and activism to a great excess. Fanaticism is excessive and unquestioning enthusiasm or support for something. Neither of these definitions nor the main articles of these two subjects suggest automatic prejudice or outward intolerance; the only thing close is the fact that zealots and fanatics are intolerant of other opinions within THEIR OWN mindset (sorry for the caps, but I don't know how to do italics :'-( ). This is not prejudice. Throwing around words like "by definition" doesn't help anything. Your take on this is very speculative and involves an overly simplistic, stereotyping mindset of these concepts, no offence meant personally. Can you explain how these 4 concepts are bigotry? How do they inherently show prejudice and outward intolerance? And I'm talking about the IDEAS, not certain people who you consider zealots or fanatics. In other words, don't bring up insane pastor Fred Phelps and treat him as a representative example of fanaticism or zealotry. Karwynn 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The "See also" section may list related articles. Many of the deleted items are related, some not. Pushing POVs by including certain ideologies that some people may consider to be bigoted is not NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my edits

  1. Bigotry encompasses more than just 'dislike of opinions that differ from one's own'. I fixed the lead to reflect racial bigotry, etc. This seems to be a place in which many dictionaries provide an insufficient definition of the term.
  2. Bigotry is used fairly interchangeably with closed-minded. This is not 'editorializing'--see any thesaurus. Both terms belong to a class of perjoratives that few people would draw from in describing themselves.
  3. The article seems to be rather deficient in an actual history and evolution of the concept of bigotry, but I'm not sure what could be added that's not covered under racism or hate crime. I've read a few sociological and psychological articles on the subject of racial bigotry, but again that stuff might work better at over at racism.

--Birdmessenger 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

...and 4. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy on gender-neutral language but using "him", "he" and "man" when you mean 'a person' comes across as a bit antiquated and exclusionary. We lose nothing in content by being more inclusive. Plus, the article itself uses "his or her" in the paragraph that follows. --Birdmessenger 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

People usually just use one gender or the other to avoid clutter, but it's not that big of a deal to me. The "closed-minded" thing is, though. The terms are not interchangeable. Someone can be closed-minded about an idea without being bigoted and prejudiced towards people. I'd say that's the main defference; closed-minded refers to your mindset towards an idea, and bigoted is a prejudice and hostility towards the people that idea or race is associated with. For example, I am closed-minded about abortion, but I am not bigoted towards people who get them; I don't hate them or have any prejudices towards them.
If you feel my attitude actually IS that of a bigot, feel free to call me a bigot for the sake of argument. I won't get offended Karwynn 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I see your point. I wasn't particularly married to that sentence (nor did I write it). I just didn't think it was "editorializing" to include it as the terms can be used somewhat interchangeably (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a bigot is always closed minded, but a person who is closed minded may or may not be a bigot). Anyway, I'm content to leave that out, for the reasons you described above.--Birdmessenger 00:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] what about anti-atheism

christians and jews get special status on this list of having their specific articles linked, smells a little biased to me - about about a specific link to an article about anti-atheist bigotry - which happens every single day in america and has been enshrined in our laws and not succesfully struck down by our supreme court? eh? somebody? 65.125.133.211 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

- Bullshit -

-> See kvetching.

[edit] Discrimination

I know my story sounded personal, although it’s the only way I know how to gain a better perspective. So far the only words I have heard: victim, or victimized. I disagree, there has to be a word or way to describe resistance to victimization with no closure. A continuum of bigotry, that in a sense has become airborne, which is attributed to human combative behavior. The art of bigotry is no longer segregated to racial or religious conflicts. It’s plain and simple the art of bigotry is in the hands of the dishonest, as opposed to the self honest who strive for social honesty amongst the entire world.Kisida 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

This material reads as an unattributed opinion. Please provide sources.

Also in terms of Christianity claiming the historicity of Jesus Christ which is unsubstantiated. As it is now widley accepted by scholars that none of the Gospels were written by their supposed writers but spurrious forgeries written as many as 250 years after Jesus Supposed death. The supposedly famous and important preacher/godman was unknown to historical writers of his times(most notably Josephus). And had a mythos of virgin birth, and resurrection common to other gods/godmen including Mithra, Dionysious, Buddha, and Osiris to name a few which all predate the Christ mythos. When confronted with these facts then as today those myths are dismissed as stories where as with out substantiation or fact the Christ story is somehow beleived to be true by Christians. Without reason to back up it's similarily wild, and wholly unbeleivable claims of his life story. Again fitting the definition of a bigot as being a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Let's stay on the facts, okay?

I deleted the stuff about Barbara Walker's theory. It was completely POV and non-Wiki-compatible. Wikipedia is supposed to stay on facts, not assumptions, and any assumptions are to marked as such. Granted, not everybody likes Christianity or even tolerates it, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a medium of propaganda or hatred. If we are to discuss on linguistics, let us then also stay on linguistics and historical facts, such as transformation of the initial 'v' phonem on Latin first syllable into 'b' in Western Roman languages, on truncation of first syllables in polysyllablic words in Vulgar Latin, missions of St. Boniface in the 8th century and generic history of Dark Ages. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th centuries weren't exactly the golden era of religious tolerance anywhere in the world, and especially not amongst the illiterate barbarians in tribal societies, be they nominally Arian, Catholic or sacrificing humans to Wotan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.100.124.218 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/g/Talk%7EBigotry_ea9b.html"