Jump to content

Talk:Discrimination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.150.208.80 (talk) at 17:44, 4 September 2022 (Discrimination: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssa Colvin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelma114.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a section for discrimination based on Vaccination Status

The traditional "protected classes" under federal title VII are expanding in some states (most notably Montana) the classes have been expanded to include vaccination status as a protected class under their state law. I think this is an important thing to call out as a new sub item in the discrimination page. According to the current article "Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are unfairly treated in a way which is worse than other people are treated" IE a certain class of people not being able to attend a concert or dine in a restaurant or work out in a gym based on some status (IE vaccination status).

Is this not worthy of addition to this article? My change was edited out. How does this work to add a new section and not have it be immediately deleted?

Existing Passed legislation:

Montana "2021 House Bill 702 (“HB 702”) generally added discrimination on the basis of vaccination status to the Montana Human Rights Act (see Title 49, Chapter 2, Part 3 of the Montana Code Annotated). [1]

Additional Proposed legislation in other states:

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 309 Prohibiting discrimination based on vaccination status: Ref: [2]

Idaho House Bill 140 Prohibits "discrimination against unvaccinated persons" Ref: [3]

Indiana SB 64 Prohibits discrimination against any employee with respect to failing to receive an immunization Ref: [4]

New Jersey Assembly Bill 5607 would prohibit discrimination against individuals who have not received the COVID-19 vaccine: Ref: [5]

Jbkjames (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC) jbkjames[reply]

Covering political grandstanding like this smacks of WP:RECENTISM, and if we did cover it here it would need to be based on what secondary sources have to say, not primary citations to legislative bills. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MrOllie for your thoughts and reference to WP:RECENTISM, with the Covid-19 pandemic less than 2 years old and the fact that the first vaccine status based restriction was probably a year after the start that will be challenging, but I think if you look at the outward societal impacts such as discriminatory signage on businesses, sporting arenas with different seating sections in favor of one class vs another there can be a good argument made that we are seeing the biggest outward display of discriminatory (but societal acceptable) behavior IMHO warrants mention in this important entry on discrimination IMHO. In my mind we need to put more emphasis on the visibility of the societal shift to accept discriminatory signage, language, and restrictions than the limited time people have had to write scholarly articles or books on the topic. But I will poll the current state of secondary sources and report back as soon as I have that. I would also appreciate any additional feed back others may be able to offer on this talk idea and suggestion. Jbkjames (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this to Jim Crow is highly offensive. MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies MrOllie,I have edited out that comment. Did not mean to sidetrack the discussion. Jbkjames (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate that feedback MrOllie. I'm still working through available secondary sources to see what's there - give me a few days, obviously I feel differently about it than you do. Curious to get some other feedback as well. Greatly appreciate the dialog sir. Jbkjames (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Focus of the article

The above points out what starts to be two main traditional meanings of the term:

  1. One is in essence any form of differentiation / selection. This article is not about that broad topic. E.G discriminating taste regarding music.
  2. The other is negative treatment of people based on an unchangeable trait, e.g. racial discrimination. And this type is widely considered to be bad discrimination and by definition bad discrimination.

In general people seek to expand the latter into whatever suits their worldview or political agenda. For example, they might say that levying penalties for violating immigration laws is discrimination, but not so for violating speed limit laws. As far as what gets included in this article, "RS's" are not going to settle it; in this area you can find ones that say whatever you want or use the term in whatever way that you want. So in short, wikipedia policies and guidelines are not going to settle it. My thought is to recognize that what falls under the narrow definition of #2 would pretty extensively be considered to be bad discrimination and to focus the article accordingly. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000 for your contribution, in essence I think what you are saying is that there can be debate on things coming in out of of the list but to come up with (or agree) on a litmus test of what is considered for inclusion as "bad discrimination" for the twelve subsections of section 3. There is no argument from me that discrimination based on vaccination status would not be on the same level as the other protected federal protected classes, but in my mind it's a thing to be covered under the broad category of discrimination in this wiki somewhere. If there is a suggestion for another article I'm opened to that as well.
Are there other traits here on the list that one could argue are changeable? Language, Name, Nationality, or Religion for example? If your reason for excluding vaccination status from the list is because it's changeable and the others are not - one could argue that we need to remove a few other items no?
   3.1 Age
   3.2 Caste 
   3.3 Disability 
   3.4 Language 
   3.5 Name
   3.6 Nationality
   3.7 Race or ethnicity
   3.8 Region 
   3.9 Religious beliefs 
   3.10 Sex, sex characteristics, gender, and gender identity 
   3.11 Sexual orientation  
   3.12 Reverse discrimination
   3.13 [if it was to be included] Vaccination Status 
I am a newbie here, but obviously feel passionate that this topic should be included in this article, . Feedback from the wiki community on this topic appreciated. IE "Who gets to decide what classes are worthy of inclusion in this article"? Jbkjames (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far the most respected academic paper discussion on the topic (the publisher claims all articles are double-blind peer-reviewed) I've found is from last year's World Conference of the Social Sciences if anyone is interested in that is can be found here: https://www.dpublication.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/36-20245.pdf

Their conclusion says:

"This research has provided us with understanding of an additional type of discrimination, which has evolved recently as a new social phenomenon. The specificity of vaccination status discrimination has mirrored in new patterns of people’s interaction, which can be added to the basics of the social theory."

Maybe a new subsection called "emerging new potential types of discrimination" or vs adding it to the list in section 3? Jbkjames (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely made it a separate section because I truly meant it for the article as a whole, not specifically for vaccination status. Answering the latter part of your question, by my proposed idea, we would remove "Discrimination against refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and internally displaced persons" and would tend to weigh in against including vaccination status. But to answer more generically, I would treat vaccination status the same as refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and internally displaced persons" which are currently in the article. North8000 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the section "Discrimination against refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and internally displaced persons" to Racial discrimination#Discrimination against refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and internally displaced persons. It was too specific for this overview article.
Regarding vaccination: No common definition of discrimination mentions "vaccination status", so it doesn't belong in this overview article. (And of course, "discrimination against people who don't want to get vaccinated" is just as silly as "discrimination against people who don't want to stop at red lights". Sanctioning people whose unreasonable behavior negatively affects others is not discrimination.) – Chrisahn (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: For comparison, see Talk:Discrimination/Archive 2#Adding Species section, Talk:Discrimination/Archive 2#Drug use (again) and many other previous discussions that were also (at least to a large part) about the scope of this article. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your feedback Chrisahn, people who don't want to stop at red lights are not excluded as a class of people from sporting events, restaurants or gyms via signage unvaccinated people are. IMHO there's a slight difference in treatment there. All additional feedback on this topic is welcomed to understand the consensus of opinion on if and where vaccination status should end up (if anywhere). Jbkjames (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who aren't wearing shirts are regularly excluded from stores and restaurants, but this is not discrimination because there is an action they could take to gain admittance. MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who don't want to stop at red lights are excluded as a class of people from driving cars. But this is veering into WP:TALKNO / WP:NOTFORUM, and we should stop here. Bye! — Chrisahn (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point and example was that the word is so fluid that the possible scope is infinite and that perhaps a focus of the article could be negative treatment based on unchangeable traits. Otherwise one could end up with "based on choices and behaviors that are in fashion at the moment." North8000 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion on the scope of this Wikipedia article. And in light of the fact that in sources and elsewhere, the scope of the word "discrimination" is near-infinite.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination

Discrimination 41.150.208.80 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]