Talk:discrimination

Invidious discrimination
Should some mention be made of the legal phrase "invidious discrimination", which is what sense 3 is? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: May–July 2022
Rfv-sense "That which discriminates; mark of distinction, a characteristic."

Seems plausible, but I don't know if it's real. As a user of Wiktionary rather than an editor, I want to see full-blown top-of-the-line cites there. Also for the other senses. You care so much about internet racist slang, but 'discrimination' literally has no cites but one I just added. When will 'discrimination' as an entry be ready to be considered as a word of the day? cf. Wiktionary_talk:English_entry_guidelines --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not that editors don't care about ordinary terms like discrimination, but that there are some people who, for whatever reason, delight in including these offensive slang terms in the dictionary. The terms are then duly (and rightly) challenged, which then means the RFV procedure has to be applied. Personally, to discourage the inclusion of such entries, I would not object to a rule applying only to offensive terms that would require an editor to include three qualifying quotations satisfying CFI at the time when the entry is created, otherwise the entry may be speedily deleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * When I see several senses, including the one hard/rare sense I mention above specifically, getting bare-bones treatment for an important entry like this, it's FLABBERGASTING. You all and your processes and schemes and cites are NOTHING if discrimination gets no more treatment than what it has now. I leave it all to you. Enjoy Wiktionary's irrelevance if you don't ever work on the real words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are millions of entries that are deserving of improvement. For my own sanity I’ve decided to focus on entries that have been nominated for WOTD. Frankly, it’s not particularly productive to rail at other editors and claim they are not doing enough. Feel free to take the initiative to improve entries you feel are important. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It exists, but is old; see NED's entry, sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the most common definitions of common words it should be much easier to add usage examples than to fully provide contemporary attestation. Usage examples would serve to help users and provide some focus for evaluating the adequacy of the definition exemplified. RfVs would follow if there is a problem that an individual contributor cannot solve. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like can mean “the act of determining, or the state of being determined”, I think  can mean “the act of discriminating, or the state of being discriminated”. This is basically the current sense 1, but in the sense “an act” it is clearly countable. It can be seen heree used in the plural form. I tend to think that the citation from 1789 given at the sense to be verified actually also has this sense. A better definition for the sense in the NED is (IMO) “A distinctive characteristic; that by which a distinction or classification can be made” – which can be a mark, but also a colour, a shape, a sound, an odour, ..., or any combination of suchlike.  --Lambiam 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that MWOnline has five definitions, but does not have the obsolete/rare definition, whereas we have four, including the obsolete/rare sense, which raises the possibility that we lack at least two definitions. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lambiam OED lists the sense seen there separately; it is a countable US-specific sense relating to discrimination in trade. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)