Talk:Marginalization

explanation

"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.

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".

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)

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? --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

The disambig links to Conditional probability, but the term marginalization isn't explained or even mentioned there. Maybe it should link to Marginal distribution instead. --88.73.33.129 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous

" An example of marginalization at the individual level is the exclusion of single mothers from the welfare system prior to the welfare reform of the 1900s." WHERE?! Article is not specific in a lot of areas, too much assumption regarding identity of reader, poor syntax as well, generally still needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.96.249 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In academia

How about the marginalization of academics and other professionals whose ideas about scientific matters run counter to the mainstream? Jack Drescher speaks of psychoanalysts and other dissenters like Robert Spitzer who were marginalized from the APA because of their views on the mutabability of homosexuality. [2] --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct but they are also marginalised because of their dissenting, radical or controversial views on a range of other topics, including HIV/AIDS, climate change, evolution, alternative medicine, green energy, third world politics, to name a few. They are intellectual rebels and dissenters whose ideas and views run against those of the mainstream. Forsure they are marginalised and abused, often systematically. A new section is required for this; please go ahead and make one. thanks Peter morrell 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Some off-the-cuff examples might include Andrew Wakefield, Immanuel Velikovsky and Peter Duesberg?? Peter morrell 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what your reference shows with Spitzer is not him being marginalized, but him being taken seriously... and his claims addressed, and found to be flawed. Far from being some sort of kneejerk reaction to what he had to say, it was reasonable analysis that ultimately convinced Spitzer himself that he had drawn inappropriate conclusions from his study. See here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)