Talk:Bigotry

message: bigotry should be the root article that describes the psychological concept, bigotry, and the usage of terms related to description of intolerance and prejudice.
===Support (1)===
#Support. Adraeus 12:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
apple
===Oppose (0)===
===Decision===
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.21.249 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.21.249 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: I know my story sounded personal, although it’s the only way I know how to gain a better perspective.  So far the only words I have heard: victim, or victimized.  I disagree, there has to be a word or way to describe resistance to victimization with no closure.  A continuum of bigotry, that in a sense has become airborne, which is attributed to human combative behavior.    The art of bigotry is no longer segregated to racial or religious conflicts.  It’s plain and simple the art of bigotry is in the hands of the dishonest, as opposed to the self honest who strive for social honesty amongst the entire world.Kisida 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination  

message: This material reads as an unattributed opinion. Please provide sources.
::Also in terms of Christianity claiming the historicity of Jesus Christ which is unsubstantiated.  As it is now widley accepted by scholars that none of the Gospels were written by their supposed writers. The supposedly famous and important preacher was unknown to historical writers of his times(most notably Josephus). And had a mythos of virgin birth, and resurrection common to other gods/godmen including Mithra, Dionysious, Buddha, and Osiris to name a few which all predate the Christ mythos.  When confronted with these facts then as today those myths are dismissed as stories where as with-out substantiation or fact the Christ story is somehow believed to be true by Christians. Without reason to back up it's similarly wild, and wholly unbelievable claims of his life story. This is purely speculative opinion on the definition of a bigot as being a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: I deleted the stuff about Barbara Walker's theory. It was completely POV and non-Wiki-compatible. Wikipedia is supposed to stay on facts, not assumptions, and any assumptions are to marked as such. Granted, not everybody likes Christianity or even tolerates it, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a medium of propaganda or hatred. If we are to discuss on linguistics, let us then also stay on linguistics and historical facts, such as transformation of the initial 'v' phonem on Latin first syllable into 'b' in Western Roman languages, on truncation of first syllables in polysyllablic words in Vulgar Latin, missions of St. Boniface in the 8th century and generic history of Dark Ages. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th centuries weren't exactly the golden era of religious tolerance anywhere in the world, and especially not amongst the illiterate barbarians in tribal societies, be they nominally Arian, Catholic or sacrificing humans to Wotan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk • contribs) 
You're wrong. The Goths established their kingdom by merging german and roman laws. They accepted any religion without any discrimination before they adopted catholicism. The roman catholic clergy was equal and as powerfull as the wisigoths rulers, so after the conversion of the goths the king was elected by the roman clergy.
The famous rules against jews raised after the conversion. They were in addition no racial laws at all, but religious ones demanding for conversion.
The spanish jews were not hebrew people at all but mixed blood of hebrew, and a large part of converted roman, goths and numerous slavs and saxons slaves traded from Frank kingdom, and property of the local Jews. Most of Spanish Jews had European origin.Gollan 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's stay on the facts, okay? 

message: The D-day code name BIGOT was the reverse of to gib, or to gibraltar. I read this somewhere and am looking for the source. if anyone else knows or finds a source before me then I think that might be a helpful explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coffeetable (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Gib(raltar) 

message: What's here is good, but it leaves me with the question I arrived here with: can you be quite correct, but because you won't hear any further discussion (and perhaps have reached your conclusion hastily) bigoted? I don't see why not, but I'm not certain it's so.
Ndaniels 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct and overbearingly so usually gets described as "self-righteous;" in the instances of practice demonstrated in the world, however such practices are usually related to a kind of fascism and hence, bigotry of a powerful majority, knowing, or those in power -- financially or politically. The "bigoty" of a minority is generally viewed as somewhat amusing, until such time as that minority comes to hold power and does itself continue the traditions of institutionalized bigotry, e.g. segregation, defamation by continued insults, unwarranted or frivolous censorship, crude degrading jokes and demeaning behaviors. 71.51.73.23 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes as long as you didn't consider all sides before rejecting them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.8.221 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you be correct and bigoted? 

message: Shoudn't Mel Gibson have at least an asterisk next to his name like sport players do when their achievments are tainted in some fashion, like steroids?  To say Mel Gibson is a bigot when intoxicated is not quite fair when placed up against the others in the Famous Bigots list that had their views espoused while of clear mind.68.62.156.237 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Mel be on that list? 

message: User:Neil916 is trying to prevent anyone from editing the article.Wolfowit 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, including vandals.  And vandalism is quickly reverted.  Neil916 (Talk) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you are too ignorant to understand my edits, does not mean it's vandalism.  People like you censor valid contributions, while ignore real subtle vandalisms.Wolfowit 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neil916's Attempt To Censor Article Editing

message: Shouldn't this article contain something about how the subjects of anti-bigotry often claim that anti-bigotry is bigotry?  Llor N' Kcor (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Bigotry 

message: The German article describes a phenomenon of "unreflected piety", the English article describes a phenomenon of "prejudice, bias" -- these are not identical. In French, the meaning seems to be in between these two -- a primarily religious-based sense of being right. Therefore, I am hesitant to remove the interwiki-link to German or to English. As long as the French article links to both, though, bots keep replacing the interwikis between English and German, even though there have been two subtle shifts in meaning resulting in a sufficiently large change in meaning to no longer warrant the interwiki-link. How can I solve this?--Bhuck (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having found a more satisfactory solution, I am also going to cap the French interwiki--bots keep replacing the German interwiki which is misleading and does not reflect the shift in meaning.--Bhuck (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwikis 

message: I removed the sentence "Certainly the Visigoths did behave in a manner which might have given birth to the expression, as they adopted harsh policies against all other religions after their conversion to Catholicism." because it wasn't part of the citations. I had a look but I couldn't find any real evidence that the Visigoths were more prone to bigotry than their contemporaries. Spiny Norman86.95.110.209 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Visigoths

message: The article (and this talk page) seems to imply that a bigot is defined as a person who is intolerance of others' opinions. By that definition, racism would not be a form of bigotry. However, I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that racism was anything other than a type of bigotry (anti-Semitism being another, sexism being yet a third, etc.). So I think the definition given here needs to be modified at least somewhat. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many American speakers in the middle to late 20th century broadened the definition to make it synonymous to intolerance, while others, including those in other countries, continue to prefer the older, narrower idea which, lacking a synonym, would become nameless if its name were made a synonym to intolerance.  Jim.henderson (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition is useless and without modern attribution.67.169.48.73 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Is there a source for, "the correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs," as a requirement for bigotry? Is it just a proposed definition? I've seen it quoted all over the net, but everywhere it's cited, it seems to reference this article.
Myca (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intolerance, irrationality, and animosity? 

message: Maybe I misunderstand how wikipedia should be, but when I see a table of contents, I expect the main body to come after the table of contents and what comes before it should be only introduction.
The problem that I'm seeing here is that, after the table of contents, there's nothing about what bigotry is or anything that seems like it should be the main idea of this page.
Should some content from the introduction be moved to the main body below the table of contents? 87.22.38.235 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  page format 

message: There was a suggestion to merge Discrimination into Bigotry, by User:Gregcaletta (talk). I have closed a previous move request, moved a relevant comment here with an added tag for clarity and added my own comment. Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge June 2010 

message: Is linked with a dead link. Smells like original research to me. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech000900240251&isize=L  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogomemnon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So the whole passage on etymology 

message: I am not an academic by any means, but could bigot stem from the word 'misbegot' which is a fancy way of saying 'born out of wedlock'? It's just a thought, and it wouldn't be the first time a word corrupts at some point and becomes a word with another meaning.
Personally I'm glad that we no longer stigmatise women and the children who are born 'out of wedlock'. I always wondered why it was the man who got off, scot free. I'm a man myself. It's always intrigued me. And I suppose if bigot did come from misbegot, then what a glorious full-circle the word has come? To be able to describe someone who is intolerant towards children being born out of what they consider marriage as a bigot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.172.45 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of the word: Bigot 

message: Needs to expand to clarify When is critique not bigotry. For example disagreement with Homosexuality. --Inayity (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is critique not bigotry  

message: Why is it considered that if something or someone repulses you then you are considered a bigot? If you have a fear of something or are disturbed by someone why would it be considered morally wrong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.35.172 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you do not like roller coasters then you are bigoted against roller coasters? 

message: Never thought I'd live to be old enough to see a word change meanings. My old dictionaries define the word: 
* "One blindly and obstinately devoted to party or creed" ("The Standard Diary Dictionary," William Collins Sons & Co. 1968. This is a pocket dictionary.)
* "One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." ("Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary," G & C Merriam Co. 1973.)
* "One obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion."Webster's New International Dictionary," 2nd edition, G & C Merriam Co., 1952)
The way it's defined here makes Bill Maher look like a bigot for criticizing religious bigots. (Google: bill maher bigot.) I will revisit this again with a proposed rewrite of the lede paragraph/definition. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current definition is opposite of what I learned it was 

message: The problem people are having here is that Americans and Brits use the word differently.  The definition as given by the two largest British dictionaries (Oxford and Cambridge)  is that of someone who is highly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.  The definition in the American dictionaries also includes the concept of racism  .  In other words, it can mean being intolerant simply of a class of people, irrespective of their views.  Basically, in American English the word can mean the same as the British definition, but it can also be used as a synonym for racism.2001:8003:400B:D301:9430:B2F3:BCF:ABCB (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for this well needed change. Obviously, the previous definition was clearly missing one important meanings of the word. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different definitions in British and American English 

message: The page was proposed for deletion. Rather than lose the page history, or create redlinks in the many pages that link here, I redirected it to Prejudice, as someone had suggested in June 2016. However, there was little to merge, as this page was not an article on the topic, but consisted largely of detailed anecdotes about possible etymologies of the word "bigot". The chief of these was already covered briefly at Wiktionary.  – Fayenatic London 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected