Talk:Discrimination#Merge Ethnic Penalty.3F

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Algoma_University/Introduction_to_Community_Economic_and_Social_Development_II_(Winter_2024) | reviewers = Mehakdeepkaur001, Paramdeep1313 | start_date = 2024-01-09 | end_date = 2024-04-12 }}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination is a complex and controversial topic where scientific consensus is that there does not exist one universally acclaimed definition. What is perceived as discrimination depends on cultural, political and historical context. Also what is deemed as discrimination in common everyday talk, what is legally considered as discrimination and the scientific scope differs, although they overlap.

Against this background, should the lead of the article not more neutrally reflect the complexity of the subject and offer a more broad definition, as for example there does not exist consensus of group attribution as a prerequisite for discrimination, either in the common sense or the scientific sense? FWIlkens (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

{{ping|Remsense}} I initially removed the hatnote from those two top templates on the article because they read like this (appearing on the same line):

Not to be confused with Discriminant. "Bigot" redirects here. For other uses, see Bigot (disambiguation).

When they should read like this (appearing on separate lines):

Not to be confused with Discriminant.

"Bigot" redirects here. For other uses, see Bigot (disambiguation). 1isall (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)