Talk:Minority

split majority from minority

Minority and majority should be split into two separate articles.

Minority?

This article needs to do a better job explaining the difference between the minority and majority that EVERYONE agrees with (the numerical ones) and the ones that are politically correct. Many object to the usage of of the term minority to refer to someone in the numerical majority, and it needs to be better clarified as such. I think the last paragraph needs perhaps the most work, it concerns me. Sam Spade 07:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it, what are you objections? Nikola

I made some edits. Since I was reverted when removing the last section, I will wait for others to rewrite it. Perhaps then we might remove the NPOV header? Sam Spade 08:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted the NPOV header, I don't see the article as NPOV. Nikola 09:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"These policies are notoriously controversial, and are often viewed as either being insufficient, or as unacceptable racial preferences" -- surely it would be unacceptable racial preference NOT to have these policies? And why would they be controversial? Nikola 22:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, our own personal POV's are not the issue here. My opinion might upset you, and if you would like to hear it, I suggest you contact me outside of the wiki. If you would like to hear some examples of people being upset by racial preferences, here are some links [1][2][3]. I will have you know that this is nowhere near as clear cut a matter of concensus as you seem to believe, and is actually the source of a great deal of contentious debate, violence, and legal contests. Sam Spade 01:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't talking about ratial preferences. I think that this rewrite will cover what you wanted to say. Nikola 00:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• OK, I just worked over a significant amount of the article. With all due respect to the previous writer, it was simply far too lawyerly and kept beating around the bush when the point could have been made. A minority is less than half the population, and--generally speaking--is also smaller than at least one other sub-group (i.e. it does not form a plurality). There, I think that's about as good as you'll get.

moving sentance from article

"Converse is also possible: for example, although oversea Chinese people are outnumbered by local residents, they tend to dominate economy and politics." I'd like some documentation on this, I don't know it to be the case. Sam Spade 10:04, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

bias

Yet another page with a politically correct (aka leftist) bias. Not everyone worships certain people for the sole reason they aren't white or male. --130.218.71.187

If you feel this way you should attempt to edit the page to clean the bias, or at least state some examples here of what the biases are on the page.--Bigplankton 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

moved "PC" stuff from article

I've removed the following:

In recent decades the term minority has taken on a new meaning among the politically correct, being used to refer to a group with which they perceive to be worthy of special preferential treatment. For instance, while numerically women outnumber men in most societies, they can be said in politically correct terms to be a minority, given their claim of inferior treatment compared to men. Some find this usage to be unhelpful or inaccurate.

This is not only unhelpful or inaccurate, it's also pointless. I'd even venture to say it's patent nonsense... If a group that is less numerous has control or power, that can be called preferential treatment, inequality, or even hegemony, oligarchy, ... but they do not automatically become a "majority" and the opposed ones "minorities", that just doesn't work that way. Political correctness means going out of one's way to avoid offending anyone, but that doesn't imply that it means talking nonsense. I'd really like to see some examples/sources for such a broken use of this terminology, esp. mainstream. --Joy [shallot] 21:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

majority is that segment of the population that [...], in a politically correct sense of the word, enjoys traditionally higher social status than other groups. For example, while men are outnumbered by women in the United States and many other countries, they are sometimes viewed as a "majority" due to their traditionally dominant social role.

This too. --Joy [shallot] 09:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that there's an article dominant minority. --Joy [shallot]

Ethnicity and sexual orientation

I quote from the article: "All criteria for ethnicity have bearing on designating a minority — language, nationality, religion, culture, lifestyle, or sexual orientation".

Perhaps somebody could explain how exactly the "sexual orientation" criterion can help define ethnicity ?!?! Or perhaps someone could provide - at least - an example of which one ethnicity is defined (inter alia) by it's "sexual orientation" ?!

I agree, I don't know about a single such case. Nikola 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In politics and government

the following sentence is highly problematic: Many contemporary governments prefer to assume the people they rule all belong to the same nationality rather than separate ones based on ethnicity. Examples of this are France and Greece.

This is under politcas and govenrment ie legal treatement. About 90% of countries rule that its citizens have the same nationality, to single out a coupe of states seems problematic.

I'd disagree. To my knowledge, most countries recognise that multiple nationalities live in them. Nikola 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in the sense the setennce implies. Nationality is a legal relationship with a state to its citiens.

For example are the Albanians of Macedonia, "Albanian Nationals"? no.DaveHM 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen an edit page thing in supermajority discussion. So, I will bring it up here in the protection of minority context. British Columbia had a referendum to change from first past the post to single transferable vote. It got a 58% majority but required a 60% supermajority. Here is the problem. If 40 votes for one option is given the same value as 60 votes for another option, then clearly, (do the math), the first past the posters had the equivalent of 1.5 votes each! That clearly violates the democratic principle of one person one vote. Indeed in the context of minority protection, single transferable vote has a better record. Just take the greens. I dont think they have ever won a seat in first past the post anywhere. But in stv, the green party gets elected representives. So here is a case where supermajority requirements PREVENTED better representation for minoritys! Could someone fix the definition for supermajority? It aint democratic and people should know. Brian White BC Canada

Assumptions

This has an anti-white tone to it, to the point of being almost nasty. I can see it being offensive to white people:

In the United States, the term minority typically refers to members of the non-white population, but as the numerical, social, economic, political and cultural influence of whites erodes over time in the US, and the "browning of America" is now an irreversible process, the wisdom of using the term "minority" to identify non-whites is increasingly questioned and considered by some to be offensive.

It should either be removed or modified. This section is too high up in this article. Who says white cultural influence is declining? what's the "browing of america"? why is it irreversible? how does this describe what a "minority" is? what does non-whites being offended by "minority" have to do with anything. this doesn't belong here. --Bigplankton 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed it. Now, it sounds like a simple fact, instead of a politically charged statement. --Bigplankton 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved "assumptions" into the "In Politics and Goverment" section. It fits better there.I got rid of the weird title "assumptions." It didn't belong near the top of the artice. I'm from the U.S. but I can see some non-U.S. person saying "oh here we go again, something about the u.s. has to be at the top of the artice. annoying." Also I added the word "power" because "minority" is not just about numbers as is written in the article. It's all not perfect but it's better than it was.--Bigplankton 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem, BP. The original author was implying that there is a relationship between the declining proportion of the white population, vis-a-vis other ethnic groups in the U.S., and the power of whites as a group. The passage exaggerates the relationship of sociological and numerical minority. Political power, by itself, can only go so far. Even when a numerical majority and sociological minority can translate their greater numbers into political power, as in S. Africa, there are persistent barriers to their social mobility; among these, geographic segregation and social distance (the willingness of one group to interact with another; related to prejudice). These barriers--and others--contribute to the visible disparity of social rewards between the dominant and minority groups; in fact, such visible disparity defines both groups. On a positive note, the dramatic changes experienced as a consequence of the fall of the Apartheid system have brought these persistent disparities to the fore, and have given new impetus to social movements that seek to ameliorate them--particularly for the benefit of the lowest strata of society.

I digress. I should add that this article is peppered liberally with POV arguments. I'm not singling out this passage. For example, the comments on affirmative action..."the idea that minorities should be granted special privileges that the majority does not enjoy"...This is a mysterious definiton. It's like someone blaming their instrument because they can't play. Affirmative action did not fall from the sky. It was, in fact, the first rigorous application of social theory to social policy on a federal level. Years of sociological and ethnographic research went into the implementation of federal law and the creation of the EEOC. Legislation and enforcement are imperfect instruments of social policy; but to ameliorate an intractible social problem, they are necessary. Part of the problem is that not many people understand the problem. One of the best applications of affirative action is to bridge the gaps in the social networks between dominant and minority groups that are so vital to the attainment of good jobs and the opportunities for social advancement that such jobs offer. To say that the dominant group does not enjoy the benefits of their group status is to deny what has been demonstrated. And to deny what has been demonstrated is a hallmark of prejudice. Niko481 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Niko. What you're doing in your 2nd paragraph is expressing your point of view on why you believe affirmative action is necessary for the good of society. It's a valid point of view, and others agree with you. There are also many arguments against affirmative action that are also valid. These arguments at length would fit better in the affirmative action page though, or I wasn't intending to argue affirmative action with anyone. My main objection was about about the "tone" and placement of the passage I changed. It was too close to the top of the article. It was about the U.S. Very U.S. centric for such a general word. There are obviously "minorities" all over the world. It fits better intergrated into the article with other countries. The tone of the passage hit me right away with "anti-white". "White cultural influence erodes..." browning of america irreversible.." "wisdom of using.. " "the word minority offensive to minorities..". I think it may be offensive to whites to say their culture is "eroding." That sounds like an opinion that doesn't belong on this page. Are the influences of other races around the world eroding? ...But basically you're saying that people are confusing minority with population numbers and I agree so either the whole idea can be removed completely like you suggested below, or it can easily be explained near the top of the article, but just don't use the U.S. as an example. Solved? Solved! Thank you!--Bigplankton 02:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I did say I was digressing from your point...anyway, I'll agree with you that my views on affirmative action are POV--which is why I didn't add them to the article. I was just making the observation that the article presented POVs and that they didn't belong there.

As far as the article goes, I'd be happy with a basic definition of numerical and sociological minority, a caveat (there is a tendency to confuse the usage; an argument against the disambiguation of this article), and an example or two. Since it is so specific to politics, there is an argument for the disambiguation of the terms minority party and minority govermnent. But, overall, this is an article about sociological minorities. That said, we have some problems. I've taken some passages from the article and added italics for emphasis.

"In a socio-economic context, the term "minority" tends to refer to groups of people who, according to a particular set of criteria, are fewer in population than other ethnic groups."

"A majority, in sociological terms, is that segment of the population that outnumbers all others combined,..."

"In the United States, the term minority typically refers to members of the non-white population, but since the population and power of whites has been decreasing over time in the US, using the term "minority" to identify non-whites in some regions is becoming a misnomer."

The three cited examples above take minority out of it's sociological context (the first example, blatantly so) and should be corrected/expunged.

"Some minorities are so relatively large or historically or otherwise important that the system is set up in a way to ensure complete equality. As an example, the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the three main nations, none of which constitute a numerical majority..." As with most examples in the politics and government section, this belongs either in a article about pluralism/assimilation or in one covering the specific region in question. The cited example speaks more of social and political arrangements than of minorities, per se.

And then there's the quip on affirmative action. Covered previously.

Except for my comments on your comments on the article, BP, I realize this should all be in a separate heading. Sorry for getting lost in the flow. Niko481 04:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the defintion of minority

I am considering changing the introductory section. It lacks focus, presenting too many ideas that are better explored in sub-sections. Also, the sociology section is inaccurate and needs a major overhaul. Even though this article is written by a number of people, there is no reason that it should look that way: this is the problem with the politics and government section...a patchwork quilt of ideas.

When one speaks of groups of individuals, there are two definitions of minority. One is numerical; the other, sociological.

Numerical minorities refer to groups that have fewer members than another group--called a majority group, or, simply, the majority. This defintion has more relevance politically than sociologically. The US Senate, for example, is comprised of 100 individuals, typically with one of two party affiliations, Republican and Democrat; if the Republican party holds 51 seats and the Democats 49, the Democrats are said to be the minority party.

The sociological definition of minority, on the other hand, is very different. The definition of a minority group (sometimes called a subordinate group), as put forward by sociologist Louis Wirth--way back in 1945, but still considered classic--is "a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out by others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination." To avoid any confusion with the numerical definition, sociologists tend to use the term dominant group instead of majority group to describe the group who holds a disproportionate amount of social, political, and economic power (or, in terms of stratification, those that are at the top of the social hierarchy).

To illustrate the difference between numerical and sociological minorities, consider South Africa. In 1970, "African" and "Coloured" peoples numbered approximately 24 million, a majority of the population. "Whites," numbering less than 4 million, were clearly a numerical minority. However, social policies under the rubric of Apartheid both segregated African and Coloured peoples from Whites and limited their access to the same social rewards that Whites enjoyed. Overt discrimination by Whites--the dominant group in South African society--against African and Coloured peoples, define the latter as a sociological minority.

I am strongly proposing expunging the "Assumptions" section. Why not just say "In recent years, with its declining white population, more people in the US have been confusing numerical minority with sociological minority. Hopefully, Wikipedia will serve to solve this problem..." Just delete it alltogether.

Niko481 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Minority group

Instead of redirecting this article to minority group, I'm suggesting that it be merged instead. I've offered a clearer, more concise definition and outlined the new article on minority groups to include groups not mentioned here. The new article avoids the ambiguity with numerical minority that was present here. Niko481 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Minority

Minority (マイノリティー; mainoritei-) is a Japanese rock band from Nara. The group consists of one MC and three members: Higashi (vocal), D-C (lead guitar) and Yokoyuki (drums). Minority made their major label debut on 21 October 2001, with the release of their first single Sekaiichi (世界一). They are known for performing the 13th opening of Gintama.

History

The origin of the name comes from young age of members. When searching on the internet for a backronym Higashi discovered Minority and the connection to Radiohead, who's members are of the same generation. The team expresses in their songs approach to the world. They sing about the passage of years and the reluctance to grow up, as evidenced by the outrageous behavior at concerts.

On September 3, 2006, the band announced that they would make their official debut through Sony Music Japan's Epic Records, which was also the label of Higashi's solo project My Day. The band performed at the Japanese Animelo in Tokyo on July 7, 2007. Their debut peaked at no.2 on the Oricon charts. On July 16, 2008, Minority released a live DVD from the concert they held in February 2009.

Members

• Higashi - vocals
• D-C – lead guitar
• Yokoyuki – drums

Discography

Studio albums

• Sekaiichi (世界一)
• Wasuremono (忘れ物)
• 僕の愛してるだれもいない