Talk:Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Discrimination, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
To-do list for Discrimination: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Remove USA-centric content, or rename as "Discrimination in the USA"
  • Add section with statistics
  • Add a section for musical discrimination citing specifically the RAVE Act I and II in the United States and how this directly inhibits the musician's right to perform using an electronic medium in a dance-oriented environment, while simultaneously stereotyping people who enjoy dancing to electronic music as drug abusers or dealers.
  • Add section on discrimination against people with learning disabilities
  • Rewrite the Language Discrimination section to have a neutral point of view.
  • Replace "Citation Needed" tags in the Religious and the Language discrimination sections with sources so that content can be verified.
  • Provide sources for the Language Based Discrimination section.
  • Rewrite the Religious Discrimination section to have a neutral point of view.
  • Add a Racial Discrimination section
  • Add section on discrimination against people with learning disabilities
  • Add medical and physical ability discrimination
  • Add a section on discrimnation based on belonging to a caste, such as the dalits in India or the burakumin in Japan. More generally the section needs to address issues outside the USA or be renamed.

Please add new comments at the bottom of this talk page.

Contents

[edit] 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 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.

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.)

[edit] Some Issues with this article.

I see a few issues with this article such as:

  • 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.

--Cab88 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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" [1]. Tearlach 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've altered the Rankism article for a more NPOV.--Wiley 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 poeple 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:
  1. The faculty of discrimination (in psychology): the ability to detect important differences
  2. 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)
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)

<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (AMA) 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Discrimination against those who follow darker athestics?

Is there a form of defined discrimination against those who follow darker lifestyles?

[edit] 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 (AMA) 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 (AMA) 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [2] [3] [4], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [5] and give the idea of including the poor as a major victim of discrimination. : Albion moonlight 06:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination and zack

Zack is a monster who has discriminated against us by distroying the page on discrimination. But this has earned us an extra day to work on our project.

Thankyou zack ;)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[[Iff}} a 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)