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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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 assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of Holocaust[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the article says the Nazi discrimination that Jews faced is of a religious type, and I want to point out that overwhelmingly, Nazis discriminated against Jews based on centuries-old tropes and conspiracy theories. Even converts out of Judaism were not safe, since certain degrees of hybridization across generations ("blood quantum") were also targeted. The nature was primarily ethnic discrimination and national discrimination. To put it how living Jews put it these days, "the Nazis didn't ask if we went to shul or ignore us if we didn't wear our kippot".

The religious discrimination part of the page can include religious persecution based on primarily Christian and Islamic libels and tropes with regards to Jews, the elimination of whole sects of pagan followings by Christians, or even Islamophobia during the "War On Terror", but the information about the Holocaust on this page needs to be amended to reflect information found about antisemitism tropes, stereotypes, and canards. Whoopi Goldberg made the tragic mistake on The View, around January 31st 2022, of assuming the Holocaust wasn't based in discrimination towards the perceived race and ethnicity of Jews. 2603:8001:CE40:2E00:D0D4:B187:6F4:5FC0 (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious discrimination based off perceived misinterpretations of aspects of a religion is still religious discrimination. E.g., to discriminate against Christians on the basis of a belief that all Christians are biblical literalists would still be religious discrimination, despite the discrimination based on misinterpretation (tropes and conspiracy theories) of the religion. Nazi discrimination against Jews was certainly religious discrimination. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renew Discussion of Discrimination Based on Vaccination Status[edit]

I'd like to renew a discussion I started in late 2021 (currently archived in Archive2) on adding a new subsection under Types of Discrimination topic to cover the discrimination based on vaccination status. I think this addition is long overdue to this article. Can we review this topic and see if this can be added? I think there is a very compelling argument in favor of such an addition. I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia so I don't want to just start editing the article with out some guidance and consensus.

In late 2021 when I first suggested this edit only one state in the US had added vaccination status as a protected class via passed legislation (Montana), but since then Tennessee has also passed an anti discrimination law specific to peoples Covid19 vaccination status and legislation is pending in 21 other states using language such as:

"Prohibits discrimination based on a person’s vaccination status with respect to any COVID-19 vaccine" Virginia "would add “immunity status” to the list of protected groups under state anti-discrimination laws" Utah

In 2021 and 2022, bills have been introduced to prohibit discrimination based on vaccination status in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming. So, clearly there must be something called discrimination based on vaccination status if nearly half the states in the country are writing legislation to prevent it.

Two states have passed legislation prohibiting discrimination based on vaccination status and 18 more have proposed legislation for something that this Wikipedia article apparently does not think exists. I think we need to correct that error.

In the archived discussion it was suggested that legislation isn't important and such a section wouldn't be added until "secondary sources" had something to say on the topic. I disagree, legislation in this article is very important and defines most of the protected classes listed in section 3. How can a changing legal landscape with regards to legal protection for people based on vaccination status not be worthy of a mere mention in this article?

Let's take a look at the situation of discrimination based on vaccination status world wide and not just from the US perspective with some recent scientific journal articles:

Health and Human Rights International journal: The Human Right to Vaccines: Preventing Discrimination Against the Unvaccinated "it becomes apparent that the vaccine is not only a medical technology that can support the right to health, it is also an instrument of political power that can be deployed to create new forms of discrimination against already marginalized groups."

International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research: Self-Selected COVID-19 “Unvaccinated” Cohort Reports Favorable Health Outcomes and Unjustified Discrimination in Global Survey:

Journal of Medical Ethics: "the refusal to treat unvaccinated children constitutes unjustified discrimination"

The Australian Financial Review: Vaccine passports or discrimination licences:

Center for Infectious Disease Education and Research (CiDER) (Japan): Vaccination and Discrimination: Experimental Evidence under the COVID-19 Pandemic:

University of Bonn Study The Association Between Vaccination Status Identification and Societal Polarization (Germany) "Thus, the more vaccinated people identified with being vaccinated, the more they discriminated against unvaccinated players.

Aarhus University Denmark: Prejudice Against the Vaccinated and the Unvaccinated During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Conjoint Experiment (Preprint) "Those who refuse vaccines report that they feel discriminated and pressured against their will."

Can we work of some agreed language to add this subsection as 3.13? I'd like to know what people think on this issue. Jbkjames (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaccination status and personal beliefs towards vaccination status is a mutable characteristic, I really doubt people want to engage with discussion re the validity/justification of discrimination on the basis of mutable characteristics, as it opens a can of worms which essentially calls at least some of the page's listed characteristics (as of now: race, gender identity, sex, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation) into question.
That being said, such discrimination does exist, but I am of the impression that the current animosity towards vaccination status (and lack thereof) is transient, at least moreso than several of the other forms of discrimination listed which have more historical context. I'd give it some time before changing the page. I am a Leaf (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Bigotry" vs. "discrimination"[edit]

"Bigotry" currently redirects to this article. Isn't "bigotry" a synonym of "prejudice" instead of "discrimination?" Jarble (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prejudice is a much better target than this article. Sjö (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Meters (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The redirect target was moved from Prejudice in 2022 by user:Altanner1991 with the summary "Discrimination would be a much better redirect: it is a stronger term and more closely aligns with the concept as a synonym". I don't agree with the rationale behind that summary and move. Meters (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now moved. Sjö (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]