Talk:Discrimination/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Balance of flaws

Restating and expanding on my previous comment, I think that this article gets some NPOV-balancing via a "balance of flaws". A case in point, is that it is rife with statements that imply a difference in numbers or result shows that discrimination is in play. While Rainbowofpeace's removal of the university one was technically valid, we don't want to go down the slippery slope of POV'ing or a POV war by differentially applying such considerations, in view of the above. Also, as, I believe, it was the only mention (and thus a "stub" on) the topic of such discrimination in universities (there is an immense amount of sourcing to this effect) perhaps it should stay in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not againist the inclusion of discrimination againist conservatives in universities being included. I'm only againist the fact that pure numbers denote discrimination. Even what was there said that it was disputed as to whether or not discrimination was the reason. I'm sure you can find plenty of actual cases of discrimination and not just numbers. But as stated before the fact that universities in the United States have a larger number of Christians, Heterosexuals, Cisgender people, Able-Bodied people, and Able-Minded people does not consitute that there is Religious discrimination, Homophobia, Transphobia, Ableism or Mentalism involved.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but you are addressing the area that we already agree on rather than the crux of my comment. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Here on wikipedia it is our job to go by what most civil rights activisit, sociologists and lawyers would call discrimination. We can't just pretend like we are the divine creators of such a topic. It is true that there is discrimination againist conservatives and liberals in many different places. I'm not denying that. But the fact that there are more liberals in a college does not make a college anti-conservative. Even the statement in question said that is was a "possible but disputed" explanation. We are not looking for things that possibly are discrimination. We are looking for things that are definately discrimination. Find an instance where someone was forbidden to go on to a college campus because of their political affliation. Or a time when a teacher refused to pass a student because of their political affiliation. Thats discrimination. Every other form on here talks about things that are definately discrimination. I'm sure you can find something about actual political discrimination and not just difference in numbers.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
You are mostly just restating what we already agree on. But I disagree with your first two sentences, it should be on the defined and common meanings of the term, not just what those three groups of people say. And advocating a definition outside of what a narrow group prefers does not equate to acting like a "divine creator". But I think that the essence of your answer is that you do not agree with my idea of temporarily leaving that in as a "stub" to grow that section from. That's fine, it was just an idea I had. Sincerely,, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Majority" vs "Advantaged"

There is currently a paragraph in the lede reading "Discrimination is not always against a disadvantaged group. When a majority group (whites, males, heterosexuals, rich etc.) is discriminated against because they are a member of this group this is usually called reverse discrimination."

Recently, anonymous user 216.105.70.83 made this edit noting "Males and the rich are not majorities". In response User:Rainbowofpeace made this edit responding "A majority or minority isn't alway numerical but what is the dominant group or subordinate group in a particular hierarchy."

I meant to make a mediating edit then, but overlooked it until someone deleted that paragraph today (and Rainbowofpeace rightly restored it). My mediating edit addresses 216.105.70.83's correct point that males and the rich are not majorities, while keeping the point the paragraph is making about males and the rich being (as Rainbowofpeace put it) dominant groups. The logical structure of that paragraph is contrasting disadvantaged groups with their opposite; "majority" is clearly not the correct term to use there, as (despite Rainbowofpeace's edit summary) majority groups can be disadvantaged (there are more poor than rich, for example, but the poor are certainly disadvantaged compared to the rich) and conversely minority groups can be advantaged; "dominant", as Rainbowofpeace puts it, would be fine with me; but the obvious choice for contrasting "disadvantaged" is "advantaged", which I use.

Now User:North8000 has reverted that claiming "You can't be serious about defining those as categorically advantaged groups. For starters, it conflicts with the second half of the sentence." I am at a loss to understand this complaint.

It seems North8000 is arguing that sometimes being discriminated against makes a group non-advantaged. By that logic, sometimes being discriminated in favor of would make a group non-disadvantaged, and e.g. the mere existence of affirmative action programs would magically make the groups those favor no longer disadvantaged because something is now in their favor. But the sentence as it stands already disagrees with that. The entire purpose of that sentence is to contrast "whites, males, heterosexuals, rich etc" with "disadvantaged" groups, and say that such "non-disadvantaged" groups are nevertheless sometimes discriminated against, and that there's a name for that.

I am only trying to state that more clearly for technical accuracy, not trying to make that point myself; the sentence already asserts that as-is, just inaccurately, as males and the rich, and in some places even whites, are not majorities, but are still socially dominant or advantaged groups. If North8000 wants to argue with that sentence existing at all, please go right ahead, but that's a different argument than what word to use in it.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you and its not easy trying to make sound contributions to articles which have a small cabal of uncompromising editors who think they WP:own the articles they edit and who scare off anyone whose ideas they personally reject. Too many folks like that on wikipedia. best of luck Peter morrell 07:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it defines whites, males, heterosexuals etc. (categorically) as "advantaged groups". This definition is unsourced, POV and often wrong. As a sidebar I was pointing out that even the second half of the sentence refutes such a categorical statement....wherever there is "reverse discrimination" those are the dis-advangaged groups in those situations. A minor wording change could fix this problem, and since it is a statement buried in the preface (i.e. not the main statement of the statement) it would not even affect the main statement that is there. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
But the entire paragraph was contrasting whites, males, rich, etc, with "disadvantaged groups", and saying that sometimes it is the former who are discriminated against in favor of the latter. But by your reasoning, it is not possible to favor a "disadvantaged group" over [whatever we call the inverse set of such groups], because in favoring them they become, in that context, the advantaged group.
I think it's clear that the paragraph is talking about whether a group is broadly or typically advantaged or disadvantaged; without saying anything about whether e.g. affirmative action policies are good or bad, I think we can all agree that on average (in the US for example) rich white men are overall or usually at an advantage over poor black women, even if in some circumstances (e.g. when affirmative action is in action) the latter would be favored over the former. And that that's clearly what's meant when the poor, blacks, women, etc, are called "disadvantaged groups", both in the first sentence of that paragraph and in common usage all the time; not that nothing ever goes their way, but that things less frequently go their way.
By that usage, there is nothing wrong with calling the rich, whites, men, etc, likewise "advantaged groups", and I don't think anybody is going to be honestly confused by this usage. There is however something clearly wrong with calling a group which is far outnumbered by its inverse set, like the rich, a "majority"; I can't imagine anybody who would claim that the majority of people are rich.
In other words, if you object to calling the rich, white, and men "advantaged groups", you should be the same logic also object to calling the poor, blacks, and women "disadvantaged groups"; and then what language are we going to use to speak of "reverse discrimination" in distinction from other discrimination? You might want to make a point of that -- that discrimination is discrimination regardless of who it is for or against -- but in that case there's nothing special to say about "reverse discrimination" and so the whole paragraph has to go.
Judging from your edit and comment history I presume that you do want to say that there is such a thing as discriminating against rich, whites, men, etc, and that it is not only actions disfavoring the poor, blacks, women, etc which count as "discrimination". I have no objection to that, in fact I think it's a good point to make; but we need something to call the two supersets. The line is clearly not along minority/majority lines if the poor (a majority) and blacks (a minority) are on the same side. So if we don't say advantaged/disadvantaged, what do we say? I'm honestly open to alternatives, but we have to give both sides of the equation equal treatment. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm a bit confused. The problematic sentence (which you are arguing in favor of) which I said merely needs tweaking is completely GONE because YOU took it out. (????) That confusion aside, the tweaked version could read something like:
"Discrimination is not always against a disadvantaged group. When a group that is normally considered to be advantaged is discriminated against, that is often called reverse discrimination.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted it expecting it to be reinstated, because nobody had commented on the talk page here and had instead simply reverted my edit without addressing my points, so it appeared you all were only paying attention to edits, not talk.
If you want to put "normally considered to be" in front of advantaged, then logically it needs to go before "disadvantaged" too, because if reverse discrimination ever happens then the "disadvantaged" groups are sometimes favored and are therefore, by your logic, not categorically disadvantaged. But it would be unwieldy to say: "Discrimination is not always against a group normally considered to be disadvantaged. When a group that is normally considered to be advantaged is discriminated against, that is often called reverse discrimination." We need a concise but accurate pair of terms to use. Rainbowofpeace's word "dominant" would work in place of "advantaged", but the only antonym I can think of is "submissive" which definitely doesn't work in context. We should look into what the standard sociological terms used to describe "rich, whites, men, etc" in contrast to "poor, blacks, women, etc" are (if they aren't just "advantaged"/"disadvantaged"). --Pfhorrest (talk)
Well, if you guys just keep talking this through here, then I feel sure you can reach a happy compromise, from which the article will be all the better. best of luck! Peter morrell 07:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reverse-discrimination case material

On second thought, I agree with Hairhorn's removal of the material, including by reverting my re-instatement. Upon a re-read of the article, I noticed that it has done a pretty good job of staying at the higher/more general level. Something this specialized might start messing that good pattern up, so it's fine (and, in hindsight, even preferable) with me that the material stays out. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexual Preference

You can say if you are hetro- or homo- sexual. Any mental alarm bells going off? 203.11.71.124 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can also paint yourself a certain skin color, pretend you are of a certain religion, imitate a disability, or pass as a certain sex. That dosn't not make you one of the above. Sexual Orientation is a matter of who you are attracted to and if you could just choose whether to be gay, straight, bisexual, or asexual why would anyone be homosexual with so much homophobia and why would there be so much suicide in the Gay Lesbian or Bisexual community.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sex Gender and Gender Identity Discrimination

I think that it is extremely important to recognize that the Sex Gender and Gender Identity section has almost nothing on the transgender community. I hope that someone with knowledge will expand this.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course this raises all of the usual questions. Is it a behavior (whether chosen or per innate tendencies), or is it a membership in a group/category, or the latter created by the former. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ask the people who have committed suicide over it. I know what they will tell you. Anyway that is irrelevant my point is that discrimination againist the Transgender Genderqueer and Intersex community is completely ignored with nothing more than a single sentence about the discrimination that trans people face.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't dispute any of that. I think that it should be included as you propose. My point was just to make sure that we don't promulgate a double standard which this article has always been on the brink of which is essentially saying that politically correct discrimination is not discrimination. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked for more coverage on this quite a while ago. I am terrible at research but I still feel that the Sex Gender and Gender Identity section has almost nothing on the transgender community. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of "belling the cat"? Name the problem when you can at least step toward a solution. Shall I, as a straight blanco, start?
Wikidity (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections. But as a side note, the article covers only a tiny fraction of the types of discrimination, so more is left out than included. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination based on prejudice

I really appreciate this article and I think discrimination issues are important, however I find it annoying that the article is entitled simply "discrimination". Discrimination is fundamental to human activity. Without it we wouldn't be able to discriminate between whether it was a good idea to eat a donut for breakfast or cheerios, hiring managers wouldn't be able to decide who to hire and the list just go's on and on. This is an article about discrimination based on prejudice, not an article based on discrimination. for example this is the definition of discrimination in the encyclopedia britannica "the ability to perceive and respond to differences among stimuli. It is considered a more advanced form of learning than generalization (q.v.), the ability to perceive similarities, although animals can be trained to discriminate as well as to generalize. " ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.68.170 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points, but it's even more complicated than that and I think "prejudice" based is too narrow. But "prejudice based" discrimination which is fashionable / politically correct at the moment is often not called discrimination. So "Black Caucus" would often not be called discrimination, whereas "White Caucus" nearly always would. So the discrimination article has to be careful that it does not itself practice discrimination. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"State discrimination vs. free market discrimination"

This entire section reads like a libertarian opinion piece and I'm not really up to the task of rewriting it. There is a total of three sources that are cited repeatedly in both subsections. Two have a clear anarcho-libertarian slant (as do their own sources), but the other I don't have access to.

  • Linda Gorman, "senior fellow at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado"—a conservative think tank. A quick Google search for linda gorman independence institute confirms that her favorite dead horse is "big government".
  • Robert P. Murphy, "Senior Fellow in Business and Economic Studies at Pacific Research Institute"—another conservative think tank. Googling robert p murphy pacific research also brings up some anti-global warming and anti-environmentalist propaganda.

Honestly, I'd like to just remove the section because to me it's obviously propaganda, but that wouldn't be very NPOV of me. Anybody? Eris Discord | Talk 00:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with the above. Came to the talk page specifically for the purpose of seeing that this issue was addressed. 99.55.165.173 (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I expected that this section would compare discrimination by the government vs discrimination by non-governmental organizations. E.g., in the US private organizations have more freedom to discriminate than the government. But, astonishingly, this section presents as "fact" that discrimination by private organizations cannot happen. Apparently the earlier mentioned wage discrimination between men and women must not exist either. 108.234.224.230 (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole article, by nature of it's topic and the varying definitions of "discrimination" is an assemblage of POV material. I'd be against selectively removing particular POV's. Ditto for what should actually be done with most of the article, which is attributing the POV's (e.g. "according to.......") rather than stating them as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the libertarian view is not simply biased, but completely distorted by denying the reality of discrimination within private businesses while placing blame on governments. It resorts to cherry-picking of anecdotes (and extreme ones at that) to justify its position. This section needs to be redone, both for the sake of accuracy, and to present a balance of views. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology 1 & 2

It is important to remember that the accusation of (some specified) "discrimination" attributes an 'inappropriate motive' to the accused.
Although the motive of the accused might be simple or complicated, the accuser is (almost?) never able or willing to present the possible complications. These complications must be identified by the accused (depending on self-knowledge or deceit), in defending his/her motives for the action or position. Bad faith, rage, or stupidity on either side, can make the debate pointless.
Discrimination in a social or education environment based on moral or ethical grounds (avoid liars, plagiarists, thieves, etc.) is just good personal hygiene & good sense.
(An immoral person might likewise (and reasonably) prefer to avoid people with stricter standards.)
Discrimination in a business environment is much more complicated. As an officer of a business, you must balance the reputation of the business against your corporate protection & duty to maximize financial returns (from clients) to your owners or stock holders, and also against your own personal and professional interests. Every human that lives in a social environment must develop these skills of discrimination. Allowing irrelevancies to affect your decisions will make your actions or position less effective. Deciding what is relevant is the key to careful discrimination. Many aspects of every individual you encounter, overlap; compatibility, personality, decorum, humor, ethics, education, religion, culture, race(definition?), gender, promiscuity, capabilities (physical, mental, social, financial,...), etc.
Wikidity (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is quite a complexity with this word. The first split is between "good", "OK" and "bad" discrimination. The article implicitly limits itself to bad discrimination. Then we get into POV's where people want to create definitions implement their opinions on which is which. E.G. "reverse discrimination isn't discrimination". North8000 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination is a concept that has been studied extensively in the sociological tradition

I notice that the econ articles, even though they are based on ideologically-informed assumptions like everything else, are at least informative within the confines of that tradition, and scholarly, and Wikipedia boys don't turn them into a big steaming pile of crazy.

This entry by contrast is pretty much a hodge-podge of primitive feelings pulled out of nowhere other than people's arses. Nobody contributing here has put any amount of measured thought--including empirical study and logic--into the subject of discrimination. Nor have they ever paid attention to the robust scholarly community that has. This is one of the worst, most useless Wikipedia entries I have ever seen.

It is completely unclear why whatever sociology-phobe who thinks he's in charge here slapped a big tag on top of the talk page proclaiming that no one can talk without being on board with the verbal vomit program up front. Fundamentally, this entry is a reactionary, uninformed, anti-intellectual, incoherent extravaganza of meaninglessness; it needs a fundamental reboot.

This Wikipedia page is testament to why sociology of all disciplines in the English-speaking world needs a place in the university. Its concepts, like discrimination, are too directly critical, too confrontative for the media-addled public to relate anything coherent, measured, thoughtful, or informed about off the tops of their heads.Blanche Poubelle (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

While the lead is devoid of geographic bias, many of the examples and and subsections are still US-specific and do not represent worldwide view. There is another article, Discrimination in the United States, which specifically deals with the United States and some of the parts belong there. I am pretty sure that there is discrimination in every part of the world and we can use a global perspective. 64.189.103.26 (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the meanings of discrimination also vary. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Ethnic Penalty?

Per the AfD non-admin-closure, a discussion to merge or not was indicated after editors !noted delete or merge and SPA accounts !keep. So here is the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If there is sourced information to merge in — say the phrase and one or two paragraphs explaining the origins and use of the term and what it connotes — I would have no objection to that. I advised Delete during the debate, I believe. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is short and is a sub-topic of discrimination, which would seem to obviate a merge. Most of the sources I found were trivial mentions, so I don't think the subject merits a dedicated article. - MrX 17:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • per the Ethnic penalty page, the definition is just "discrimination in the workplace", ie - a very specific subset of this article. There does not appear to be widespread usage of the term on its own with sufficient independent coverage to warrant a stand alone spin off article at this time. 'Support the merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Originally posted on the debate as well, as this concept is central to some of my research. To Mr. X and RedPen's point, the ethnic penalty is a widely used term in Commonwealth nations to examine the education and non-cognitive human capital of ethnic minorities, and how this translates to their labour market outcomes. There are a few hundred citations alone using a quick google scholar search of "ethnic penalty", so hardly a trival topic. Further, an ethnic penalty is not merely discrimination, as the work of Professors Heath and Hasmath suggests. It involves social and non-cognitive factors interplaying at the individual, organizational and societal levels which are beyond a description of discrimination - which makes merging it to discrimination a moot point. While I am not the original author of the article, I have edited the article to reflect this point more strongly. Oxfsoc 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is simply a neologism for the encyclopedic concept of Discrimination. Deleting would be appropriate, although I'm not opposed to a merge. I will point out to the others here that User:Oxfsoc did state explicitly at the AfD that "I am a PhD candidate looking at this topic". This would appear to be someone who's advancing outside interests with this subject, and has perhaps both financial and academic reasons for its inclusion as a standalone topic. --Hu12 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hu12's original assertion that it is a neologism has been discussed at length at the AfD . There was a strong consensus reached here by various individuals to suggest that it is not a neologism. It is further silly to suggest there is an advacement of outside interests, financially(!?!) or otherwise. It is a given that Wikipedia relies on experts in the field to ensure the reliability of information. Contrary to Hu12's comments, I do not have a COI in this article or the sources cited, in accordance to Wikipedia's policies. My purpose, as is the case for most individuals here, it to ensure that there is appropriate evidence for this established term, using reliable/refereed sources (which is the case at this juncture). Oxfsoc 22:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
there was most absolutely NOT a strong consensus. and when you give appropriate weight to the SPA, the balance turns even farther away from such a claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The consensus was leaned towards merge, but given some of the opposition in the AfD, I felt it would be better to discuss first. Usually, AfDs aren't relisted beyond 3 listing periods, and there definitely wasn't a consensus to delete. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Ethnic penalty" is an expression and, no matter how widely used it is, WP is still not a dictionary. If there was an article on "Economic differences between ethnic groups in one society", or something like that, it should be merged there. As it is Discrimination is broad enough that it would fit in there. BigJim707 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

lede list

A list of possible categories for discrimination in the Lede is misleading to the reader. It gives the impression that some categories are better qualified than others and leaves out important categories of individuals who experience discrimination. I don't believe that this article should have a bias in the lede to certain groups and disqualify others as not worthy to be in the list. Additionally the sourcing was changed from the cambridge dictionary to a university website which, when it comes to definitions, is a less reliable source.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake, sourcing wasn't changed a new website was added. My comments still stand.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It is impossible to include all types or categories of discrimination in the lede, and including only some would show bias towards those types. What important is the definition of discrimination in the lede. All the categories can be found on the sidebar and in the subsequent sections of the article.147.129.132.2 (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First to third world country discrimination

Hello, I'm wondering if there is a word for the type of discrimination people receive by coming from a 3rd world (or developing) country. It's not nationality based, just for coming from a non-developed country. For example, if you are living in Australia and you are considered a migrant for coming from South America, while a French guy think he is not, because he is part of the EU. I think this should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.229.83 (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2013‎ (UTC)

It would seem to still be nationality based in large part, with some race and ethnicity often thrown in, but also with a huge helping of discrimination based on socioeconomic status, the same type evidenced in the once common phrase "poor white trash" (since somewhat PC'd to "trailer trash"), which I didn't see mentioned in a brief scan of the article. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But is still kind of different. For example, if someone comes from South America but has (for example) Dutch heritage, he/she would still be discriminated. Moreover, it can happen when people don't even know the specific country. Knowing that someone comes from a developing country is enough to be discriminated in some contexts. It's kind of a fuzzy concept, but I see it quite often. Treating people different in basis of coming from 1st or 3rd world (e.g. realestate). Maybe there is no word for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.229.83 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender Discrimination

How is it that Gender discrimination is only found in Western cultures in this article? Is there no gender discrimination in Africa or the Middle East or Russia? If so, it should be described and should be a part of this article. Ridingdog (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Then quit complaining and add something no one is stopping you. Besides this article is meant to bring a brief description of each form of discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the title of the article should make it clear that this article is referring ONLY to discrimination between groups of people. As it is it expropriates a much broader term "discrimination" purely for this one avenue of discrimination. For example, people discriminate between different things quite constantly, as this is how decisions are made. Also, when it comes to discriminate between groups of individuals, this article is from a purely human-from-human perspective, while there is also discrimination between different species. For example, humans discriminate against animals they can eat (cow), versus those that are pets (dog). Since listing all possible forms of discrimination is impossible, it is thus necessary to limit these definitions by having a much more specific title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.235.88 (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My Edits to the First Paragraph(s)

Well here's how it stands now:

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice.[citation needed] This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.[2]

Not all discrimination is based on prejudice, however. In the U.S., government policy known as affirmative action was instituted to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African-Americans and women, who have been subject to the opposite kind of discrimination for a long time.[3] Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices, and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, even in ones where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those believed to be current or past victims of discrimination—but have sometimes been called reverse discrimination themselves.

It didn't used to specify 'Not all discrimination is based on prejudice.' If someone could compare the older versions before my revisions to my revisions and give me some feedback, I'd appreciate it. It might be better to put it back the way it was before, and not over-complicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psx1337 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School announcement

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article has been selected to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd like to ask the English Wikipedia community to join our efforts and improve the article before December 31, 2014 (any timezone); a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review in early 2015. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that editors can decide if and how to use them. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

gulf states

2.50.87.217 you need a source for this. can you explain what the issue is, to which you are referring, and maybe I can help you find a source? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Drug use

Opening of the lede extremely problematic

External links modified

Discrimination against Jews

Bizarre POV

Positive Definition of Discriminating

Religious freedom used to justify discrimination against others

Sexual/Gender Section confusing and unsupported in part

External links modified

External links modified

Discrimination based on intelligence

Definition of Discrimination

External links modified

Sexual orientation cleanup

Subcategory

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Philosophy of discrimination?

New modeling section

Anti bullying

Scope

Removing information

RfC on speciesism

Adding Species section

Drug use (again)

Low Quality

Discrimination: Putting a Good Word Out of Commission

Adding a section for discrimination based on Vaccination Status

Focus of the article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Discussion of Holocaust

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI