Talk:Dehumanization

message: According to evolutionary psychology when humans became apex predators humans became the competitor/predator of other humans. "Dehumanize" seems an odd descriptive for interspecies rivalry. Am I missing something? At what point did Cain decide Abel wasn't human?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 06:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Ingroup/outgroup

message: on mamalian dominance routines in humans, impact on 'marriage' and children. Wblakesx (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs something

message: psychological minimization?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1A00:6EF:E5FC:4F4D:6FEF:4EB1 (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dehuminization as unintentional

message: Text described by The Anome as weird paranoid stuff and removed by him/her:
:The empirically supported propaganda model of Herman and Chomsky shows how corporate media are able to carry out large-scale, successful dehumanization campaigns when that is in the interests (profit-making) that the corporations are legally obliged to maximise. Government-controlled media, in either democracies or dictatorships, are also capable of carrying out dehumanization campaigns, to the extent with which the population is unable to counteract the dehumanizing memes.
i'm putting this back in. If the Anome or anyone else wants to claim that empirical research is paranoid, then please actually read the research by Herman and Chomsky first. It's not paranoid, it's empirical research (external to the wikipedia) which has a simple explanation. Boud 18:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In a sense, technology can cause an illusion of dehumanization either by eroding the traditional privacy in our daily lives or by informing us of how the progress of science and rationalism tends to challenge our comforting notions of religion and humanity. The loss of privacy, especially that due to information technology, when shared by all, is not viewed as dehumanizing per se. In the extreme, posting everyone of ourselves in MRI scan, nude and accompanied by our genotype, would not dehumanize any one person, but it be viewed by some as dystopic as in the film The Man with the X-Ray Eyes. In the case of religion, for instance, the progress made by Nicolaus Copernicus (and Galileo Galilei), Hilaire Rouelle, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and James D. Watson or even Hippasus was met with negative emotions in the fashion of the Luddites because such progress via science shattered naive notions that have been conceived of based on emotions such as Narcissism and, to a lesser degree, the many implications of creationism and benevolence. Freud, in particular, gave us a better understanding that our logical conscious and our emotional unconscious were in a dynamic equilibrium with each other, thereby challenging prior notions about what makes any one person's action or decision not strictly rational and not more or less dehumanizing. In that same sense, the Internet and society itself can appear to be dehumanizing if we allow it to make us to feel like a small and replaceable component of some larger machine. If we were treat others as if they were such, then that would be dehumanizing on our part.
Is it just my interpretation, or does this entire paragraph seem to be loaded with biases? For instance, by stating in the first sentence that technology causes an 'ilusion' of dehumanization, it arguably dismisses any notions that genuine dehumanization can be caused by technology. Several statements throughout seem to be worded in a fairly biased manner, such as regarding beliefs held prior to certain scientific discoveries as naive notions that have been concieved of based on emotions such as Narcissism, which appears to infer that all primitive attempts to understand our surroundings were motivated by a desire to place ourselves in a state of central importance to the world (the context of narcissism here seems to be used in a disparaging manner, at least to me). It would also seem that by saying that Freud gave us a better understanding of the human mind presents his ideas on the unconscious as indesputable. However, I would like to have other interpretations on this. 74.67.115.198 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify, I am by no means trying to propose that technology is inherently dehumanizing, or to deny that, if looked at in a certain way, certain discoveries could be interpreted as devaluing human importance, or to ignore the adverse effects that certain religous traditions have had on society. All I am trying to bring to question is whether or not this paragraph infers that ceratin technological advances only appear to have dehumanizing effects, that certain discoveries will always lead people to find their lives less meaningful, that religous tradition is inherently unreasoning, or if any other personal opinions are presented as fact, if the alleged biases are in fact lacking in evidence enough to be considered personal opinions. 74.67.115.198 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removal 

message: Does anybody agree that people with a psychiatric diagnosis are being discriminated against in a dehumanising way? By Psychiatrists and hospital/medical staff in as far as decisions are taken out of their hands. By drugs in as far as their way of thinking is being changed. Not all people who are mentally ill have a psychiatric diagnosis, and not all people with a psychiatric diagnosis are mentally ill. In the latter case, hardly ever mistakes are admitted. 
It is not morally sustainable to keep a patient lethargic on potent drugs for years in order not to have to deal with the complications, and it is not morally sustainable to force anybody to take medications that are controversial in themselves, like many antipsychotics are. In psychiatric wards a lot of assertive suspicion against the patients is exercised 'just in case', no due respect is paid to the individual, and if there is anything that could reasonably be still tailored to the individual in the age of mass production, that is the so called 'healing of the soul', psych-iatry. Something very dubious is going on with all this systematic sedating, tranquilizing, calming, stabilising, etc. Fluttermoth (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dehumanization in Psychiatry 

message: Is the following text properly part of the article? I think I've run across something similar intending to show the baseless nature of dehumanization of sub-populations by using an example with which we are all familiar in our lives (at least in North America)  so the intent may not be malignant. Perhaps someone associated with the article should look at it. As it is, it either needs further information by way of explanation or removal.
"Furthermore, sub-minorities of the Caucasian population can be the subjects of dehumanization by the "accepted" majority. One such sub-minority are people with red hair and fair skin which have been the subject of dehumanization in both public and private arenas. A recent music video by MIA depicts the rounding up of red-headed young men by commandos who were later shot and forced to run through a mine field. The graphic nature of the music video has sparked public controversy and the detail of violence on red-heads alone within the film may justify public suspicions that red-heads already represent an additional minority-target of public dehuminization."
I notice the article seems to avoid mentioning a number of situations where a group of which I am a part is, in my lived experience, severely dehumanized to the point of being at risk in some countries of mass violence at some point or other. One is ambivalent about this omission, but perhaps it is better this way since such mentions would inexorably mire the article in controversy that would not necessarily be beneficial to getting the pure concept understood by as many people as possible. Yet somehow, the omission is disquieting for moral reasons. I wonder how this might be handled?--FurnaldHall (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Text or Vandalization of Article?  

message: The honourable members of al-Qaeda and middle class people in Argentina are frequent victims of dehumanization.
This line is placed in the introductionary paragraph of the article. Is this sentence vandalism?
First off: honourable members ? Who put this here and why? Why are we to consider them honourable. Even if they were widely regarded as such (which they are not), Wikipedia is to remain neutral and no biased adjectives be used to describe people or groups.
Second of all: middle class people in Argentina are frequent victims of dehumanization. Considered by whom? Argentinians? I find this very far fetched.
I will remove this line for now. Respond if you agree or disagree. Although i don't find it likely somebody will blame me for deleting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.44.239 (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right -- that was only added yesterday, by a new editor. Looie496 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honourable members of al-qaeda and middle class people in Argentina 

message: Hello,
I am editing this page for a class project. I am adding relevant social psychological literature. Please feel free to contact me with questions, comments or suggestions. 
Thanks,
Ivuoma (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Welocme Ivuoma! I very much appreciate that you changed the notes at the bottom of the article into inline references. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 14:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Page for a Class Project 

message: When is an article considered as verified? It appears that there is a standard among unethical editors that impose subjective demands of verification such as "this article requires verification" but allow the piece to be published along with the proviso. In other instances, articles are removed without notice for not having been verified when they are clearly cited and referenced according to the encyclopedia's standards. While rudeness is controllable, unethical behavior is not. At least if a majority of users of Wikipedia understand that objectivism is not in charge but favoritism to questionable verified information, people will no longer use this medium as way to improve their knowledge of the world. Fortunately, there are still people in the world who do not go down without a fight. The editors will meet the same fate here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8002:D298:80E5:40F5:A470:47E6 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unethical use of Wikiepdia's encyclopedic authority. 

message: When is an article considered as verified? It appears that there is a standard among unethical editors that impose subjective demands of verification such as "this article requires verification" but allow the piece to be published along with the proviso. In other instances, articles are removed without notice for not having been verified when they are clearly cited and referenced according to the encyclopedia's standards. While rudeness is controllable, unethical behavior is not. At least if a majority of users of Wikipedia understand that objectivism is not in charge but favoritism to questionable verified information, people will no longer use this medium as way to improve their knowledge of the world. Fortunately, there are still people in the world who do not go down without a fight. The editors will meet the same fate here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:83:8002:D298:80E5:40F5:A470:47E6 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unethical use of Wikiepdia's encyclopedic authority. 

message: I suggest removing all text that assigns value, for example, statements including “most prevalent” and “most notably” because these words indicate a bias which goes against Wikipedia policy. The lead section is very disconnected due to the frequent in-text descriptions; since each word that is described has a hyperlink to its own definition for clarification, I suggest removing the extra wordage. For example, creating a hyperlink for the word symbolically in order to remove the description, “(e.g., imagery)”.  I would like to propose a new article concerning dehumanization in science in medicine. This is one of the lengthier sections on this page with a great amount of credible information that could benefit from being a standalone, more detailed page.Theresaquaderer (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization suggestions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dehumanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626110654/http://general.utpb.edu:80/fac/hughes_j/Haslam%20on%20dehumanization.pdf to http://general.utpb.edu/FAC/hughes_j/Haslam%20on%20dehumanization.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513232135/http://www.cdnresearch.net:80/pubs/others/Harris_Fiske_Neurodisgust.pdf to http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/Harris_Fiske_Neurodisgust.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Human Anatomy section has wording that is either ambiguous, or suggestive of a position that Darwin didn't hold.  At best a single quote is ever proffered to suggest he viewed some humans as 'less evolved'.  However, there is ample evidence that he viewed humanity as one species.  I suggest it be reworded to avoid unintended and false implications.
207.161.213.187 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's views 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dehumanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611113035/http://armandorodriguez.es/Articulos/archivos/LeyensPaladinoRTorresVaesDemoulinRPerezGaunt2000.pdf to http://www.armandorodriguez.es/Articulos/archivos/LeyensPaladinoRTorresVaesDemoulinRPerezGaunt2000.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100929000211/http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Dehumanization to http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Dehumanization
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The "human anatomy" section makes a number of claims that seem to me to be either wrong or misleading, or not in the cited source (and also don't really have anything to do with "human anatomy"):
# "In the United States of America, Americans of African ancestry were ... deemed as a primate, not a human." - I can't find this claim in the cited source.
# "The United States of America Constitution ... stated when collecting census data "all other persons" in reference to enslaved Africans will be counted as three-fifths of a human being".  This (IMO) isn't an accurate representation of the clause, which doesn't say anything about anyone being "three-fifths of a human being", rather than three-fifths of their population will count for tax and representation purposes.
# The article states "In the 1990s reportedly California State Police classified incidents involving young men of African ancestry as no humans involved", but the source states "California state police euphemistically referred to cases involving young Black men as N.H.I.—No Humans Involved".  I think there is a subtle but significant difference here - the former implies an official policy, whereas the latter suggests it was "just" a racist joke. Iapetus (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds messed up to me. Why don't we move the content up to the Race and ethnicity section as a separate paragraph, remove the WP:UNSOURCED and rephrase the rest to closer reflect the source. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Human Anatomy" section 

message: Most of the images' captions contain information that is not cited in the caption or the body. I am concerned about the possiblity of original research with regards to identifying these as examples of dehumanization. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR images? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Kdavis25 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LIBR 1 Working with Sources

message: — Assignment last updated by Samschmid (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Winter 2023

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal