Talk:Discrimination

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 [1]. 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)