Talk:Marginalization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Marginalization article.
Article policies
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Marginalization, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Marginalization: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Bad explanationItalic text

    "Marginalisation or marginalization (US) refers in general to the overt or subvert acts and trends within societies whereby those perceived as lacking function or desirable traits are killed or otherwise excluded from existing systems of protectionism, thereby limiting their means for survival." I'm sorry that I had to say this, but the above explanation of marginalization is the worst I've ever heard.

    In what respect is this explanation of marginalization flawed?
    It seems to lack a comment about how marginalization is often just as much about insular cultures insulating themselves and establishing dominance as it is excluding cultures that are "lacking in function or desirable traits". Then again, this is a short excerpt of the original article, and should not be expected to entirely define the topic in and of itself as a thesis statement.

    [edit] Article presentation reads as POV, or Original Research

    As primarily used in political analysis and discussion, marginalisation is surely about the exclusion of individuals or groups or ideas from the main stream of a society or a debate, in particular (but not exclusively) if opponents are actively trying to make them seem irrelevant or unimportant.

    The talk about killing at the top of the article seems wholly OTT, and especially so for an opening sentence.

    Okay, I can see you're trying to present the idea by putting it explicitly in a Darwinian framework. But there is no necessity for marginalisation to be analysed in such terms. Most people coming to the article cold would expect a much more general presentation, at least initially; with any Darwinian interpretation discussed, if at all, well down the article.

    In its present form, the article seems a particularly individual take on the subject, and thus a strong candidate for being seen as POV or Original Research.

    -- Jheald 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

    Cleanup tag added -- Jheald 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Restructure tag

    The Lead section is way too long for this article. The way it's read makes it slightly confusing of how I can split the article in subsections. Anybody help? --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Consistent operational definitions needed

    The original author of this article confuses terminology and transmutes a marginalized subject into a minority group. This leap in logic is not supported by the definition of marginalization put forth by Wing Leung who describes a marginal person as "...one who does not belong...the marginal man...[who dwells] at the margin of two cultures and two societies...[and possesses] a marginal mentality...[with its] unresolved identity crises." A minority group, on the other hand, is a distinct subculture as defined by certain sociological characteristics. To be a marginalized minority, the subject that is a member of a minority group, who is seeking to become a member of another group, and who struggles with that transition,is by definition marginalized due to the inherent identity crisis. The article devolved into a personal attack on a conservative straw man. This article begins with faulty logic and confusion of operational terms. This unfortunately negates the remainder of the topic. Editing should be objective, sociological and scientific without political overlay. This will also require reputable references.

    --Mfinneran 12:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)mfinneran

    [edit] Does marginalization only happen in the presence of numerical superiority?

    The article reads:

    In this respect, what is apparent first is a distinctive social group, with their own
characteristic features, then the singling out or victimization by the more numerically
dominant members of the host society, and hence the subsequent unequal treatment leading
to acts of discrimination, social ostracism, etc. This is the essence of marginalisation.

    Later, the article refers to the poor as a "minority," but the poor are in fact the vast numerical majority of the population in almost every country, and in the world as a whole. 216.23.105.35 05:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Article needs wholescale cleanup

    After a reasonable introductory definition,

    marginalization = exclusion from meaningful participation in society

    the article then completely loses the broad picture of the range of different types of participation that definition can relate to -- eg economic, political, social, cultural... Rather than setting out a broad unifying overview, the article then dives headlong into a helter-skelter of apparently random, very specific (and often very tendentious) examples, which serve to bury rather than bring out the concept as a whole.

    Sure, the article can get to labour market participation, the position of women, of single parents, of Aboriginal groups, etc, etc, etc eventually. But first it needs to review the concept as a whole.

    Other issues:

    • the article is written like a personal essay, not an encyclopedic overview
    • the article should also reflect the countervailing criticism of the right, that the rhetoric of marginalization has become overused and led to a "victim society", where more and more of society has become unhealthily obsessed with trying to present its "victimhood".

    Because the article IMO is so fractured, disconnected and badly targetted at the moment, I have tagged it with {{limited}} and as needing {{cleanup}}. -- Jheald (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    I could not agree more; it is a godawful rambling mess. I will try to do some work on it in the coming days. thanks Peter morrell 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Disambiguation?

    I found this page when looking for info. on statistical marginalization. Should some disambiguation appear on this page?

    131.225.224.150 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Done. Or rather, restored. It seems to have been nuked when someone did a wholesale re-write of the page in October '07, leaving nothing standing, [1]. -- Jheald (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)