Talk:Bigotry

Bigot Logic

A bigot is not someone intolerant of lifestyles or identities. If we are to accept such a definition that would make law enforcers bigots of felons (an identity) and anyone who disagrees with a smoker or drug user as a desired lifestyle a bigot.

More appropriately a bigot is someone who is intolerant of a differing mindset (creed, belief, opinion, thought, etc...). A bigot is someone who refuses to accept the possibility that their particular opinions are the outcomes of flawed logic. The individual tends to reject any attempt to discuss the underlying information that was, or should, be used to form a conclusion and as such they stubbornly adhere to and defend their own opinion.

Lifestyles and identifies are the culmination of opinions, facts, and experiences that are used to form a judgment and conclusion. The concluding decision guides ones behavioral actions and reactions.

Bettergovt (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also not understanding this definition. This definition would say I am a Bigot because I am intolerant of all mass murderers.

Just to be clear all mass murderers follow through and carry out their beliefs. Such as Jeffrey Dahmer type: "I like the taste of human flesh"

If this isn't a good example for some reason how about a religion that murders such as the "peoples temple" when the atheist Jim Jones murdered all his followers.

This would make me a bigot for not tolerating those that side with the "peoples temple"

--OxAO (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the word "habitual," for when an otherwise normal and fair-minded person is exhausted and out-of-sorts, or in pain due to a serious injury, (for example), they may make remarks that make them sound quite bigoted, remarks which they themselves don't even believe, and they themselves are horrified to hear of next day when they're feeling better. A true bigot always maintains the bigoted attitude whether they are feeling ill or well. Ivain (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was move (see decision) Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

bigotry should be the root article that describes the psychological concept, bigotry, and the usage of terms related to description of intolerance and prejudice.

Support (1)

1. Support. Adraeus 12:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

apple

Oppose (0)

Decision

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 09:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.21.249 (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

antibigotous ;) disambiguation

http://www.prenoms.com/nom-bigot/bigot.html

18 030 personnes sont nées en France depuis 1890, dans 48 départements, avec le nom Bigot Le nom Bigot figure au 232e rang des noms les plus portés en France.

Bigot is the 232rd most common family name in France according to this site and 18000 people were born with the name since 1890. So i'm using this as a scratch pad to prepare disambiguation (and no, AFAIK there are no people called Bigot in my family, though who knows...). Boud 17:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bigot

1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches. But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.

disambiguation template

Bigot can refer to:

• famous people with the name Bigot such as
  • Paul Bigot
  • fr:François Bigot
  • fr:Guillaume Bigot
  • fr:Jacques Bigot
• a word dating back to at least the sixteenth century, referring (in modern usage) to a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own, see bigotry

top of bigotry page:

This page relates to the use of the word bigot to refer to a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own. For various famous people called Bigot, see the disambiguation page Bigot.

what is not bigotry

communism, partisan, materialism, classism or rationalism are not bigotry! --tasc 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Ideologies, philosophical systems and recently coined words are not bigotry. Pavel Vozenilek 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, they were staying in the list for more than a month... --tasc 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No suprise. 2/3 of articles are on nobody's watch and number of vandals and crap flooders grows exponentially. Quality of Wikipedia goes down and unless improvements (read stable versions) will be implemented the project will sing down. Pavel Vozenilek 00:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own." That's pretty broad, and would include the aforementioned ideologies.

No, it will not. --tasc 16:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think is unwilling to consider better falls in

Think about it for a minute, it would. Viewpoint discrimination would fall well within that definition. If you really think that many communists aren't intolerant of other opinions or ideologies, might I suggest you crack a history book.  :^)

Exactly. COMMUNISTS are often bigots. COMMUNIST PEOPLE. But the ideals of Communism do not always include bigotry. You are confusing ideals with those who practice them. Just because a person believes his way of thinking is absolutely correct does not mean he does not tolerate the opinions of others. There are many Communist parties that debate and politicize with other parties and ideologies. Religiocentrism, fanaticism, and zealotry - terms that refer to intense religious belief and a religion-centered life and mind - do not inherently show bigotry or intolerance, and to say that they do is extremely POV and, ironically, prejudiced in itself. You cannot rationally assume that all religiocentric, fanatic, or ethnocentric people are prejudiced and intolerant. Take Jesse Jackson; I think most people would say he is not prejudiced, but he is extremely "caught up" on race; it is central to his thought process and his life. He is ethnocentric, but he is not a bigot by any means. These terms are not hand-in-hand with bigotry. There is a correlation, but it is innapropriate to list them as examples of bigotry. I'm going to remove them again, and it would be nice if you could actually discuss the changes or at least provide an explanation in the edit summaries. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't set up the history/edit summaries up to make it look like you are simply reverting a vandal, kplzthx. Karwynn 06:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

well, they are included in see also section, they are not listed as an example of bigotry. I'm going to add them again, and it would be nice if you could actually duscuss it before removing. Fanatism, zealotry are bigotry by definition. You could argue about etnocentrism or religocentrism, but first two are so obvoious. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 06:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By whose definition? Certainly not by Wikipedia's. Look them up: zealotry is religion-related ambition and activism to a great excess. Fanaticism is excessive and unquestioning enthusiasm or support for something. Neither of these definitions nor the main articles of these two subjects suggest automatic prejudice or outward intolerance; the only thing close is the fact that zealots and fanatics are intolerant of other opinions within THEIR OWN mindset (sorry for the caps, but I don't know how to do italics :'-( ). This is not prejudice. Throwing around words like "by definition" doesn't help anything. Your take on this is very speculative and involves an overly simplistic, stereotyping mindset of these concepts, no offence meant personally. Can you explain how these 4 concepts are bigotry? How do they inherently show prejudice and outward intolerance? And I'm talking about the IDEAS, not certain people who you consider zealots or fanatics. In other words, don't bring up insane pastor Fred Phelps and treat him as a representative example of fanaticism or zealotry. Karwynn 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "See also" section may list related articles. Many of the deleted items are related, some not. Pushing POVs by including certain ideologies that some people may consider to be bigoted is not NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Communism is inherently bigotous, because it is intolerant against the rich and Capitalism, at least as far as the Communist Manifesto goes. I'm assuming that is the de facto ruling on Communism no? 72.199.100.223 (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

my edits

1. Bigotry encompasses more than just 'dislike of opinions that differ from one's own'. I fixed the lead to reflect racial bigotry, etc. This seems to be a place in which many dictionaries provide an insufficient definition of the term.
2. Bigotry is used fairly interchangeably with closed-minded. This is not 'editorializing'--see any thesaurus. Both terms belong to a class of perjoratives that few people would draw from in describing themselves.
3. The article seems to be rather deficient in an actual history and evolution of the concept of bigotry, but I'm not sure what could be added that's not covered under racism or hate crime. I've read a few sociological and psychological articles on the subject of racial bigotry, but again that stuff might work better at over at racism.

--Birdmessenger 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

...and 4. I don't think Wikipedia has a policy on gender-neutral language but using "him", "he" and "man" when you mean 'a person' comes across as a bit antiquated and exclusionary. We lose nothing in content by being more inclusive. Plus, the article itself uses "his or her" in the paragraph that follows. --Birdmessenger 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

People usually just use one gender or the other to avoid clutter, but it's not that big of a deal to me. The "closed-minded" thing is, though. The terms are not interchangeable. Someone can be closed-minded about an idea without being bigoted and prejudiced towards people. I'd say that's the main defference; closed-minded refers to your mindset towards an idea, and bigoted is a prejudice and hostility towards the people that idea or race is associated with. For example, I am closed-minded about abortion, but I am not bigoted towards people who get them; I don't hate them or have any prejudices towards them.

If you feel my attitude actually IS that of a bigot, feel free to call me a bigot for the sake of argument. I won't get offended Karwynn 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I see your point. I wasn't particularly married to that sentence (nor did I write it). I just didn't think it was "editorializing" to include it as the terms can be used somewhat interchangeably (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a bigot is always closed minded, but a person who is closed minded may or may not be a bigot). Anyway, I'm content to leave that out, for the reasons you described above.--Birdmessenger 00:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is interesting for today I have been contemplating various bigotry-bias examples within the context of the internet: bigotry in practice seems to include or exclude [discriminate for or against] certain target groups, be they racial, religious, gender-specific, national, regional, practitioners (e.g., lawyer jokes), sexual preference (e.g., gay jokes). Of fascination also is that practicing bigotry itself is regarded as a felony, one not always or often charged and in some instances apparently unenforceable. So then, does bigotry enter into the practice of charging persons with "bigotry?" Probably so, and as well the whole field of "reverse discrimination," may well be tinged with DARVO borrowed over from Denial. 71.51.75.35 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination

I know my story sounded personal, although it’s the only way I know how to gain a better perspective. So far the only words I have heard: victim, or victimized. I disagree, there has to be a word or way to describe resistance to victimization with no closure. A continuum of bigotry, that in a sense has become airborne, which is attributed to human combative behavior. The art of bigotry is no longer segregated to racial or religious conflicts. It’s plain and simple the art of bigotry is in the hands of the dishonest, as opposed to the self honest who strive for social honesty amongst the entire world.Kisida 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR

This material reads as an unattributed opinion. Please provide sources.

Also in terms of Christianity claiming the historicity of Jesus Christ which is unsubstantiated. As it is now widley accepted by scholars that none of the Gospels were written by their supposed writers. The supposedly famous and important preacher was unknown to historical writers of his times(most notably Josephus). And had a mythos of virgin birth, and resurrection common to other gods/godmen including Mithra, Dionysious, Buddha, and Osiris to name a few which all predate the Christ mythos. When confronted with these facts then as today those myths are dismissed as stories where as with-out substantiation or fact the Christ story is somehow believed to be true by Christians. Without reason to back up it's similarly wild, and wholly unbelievable claims of his life story. This is purely speculative opinion on the definition of a bigot as being a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that his historicity IS substantiated. There are other sources that talk about him besides the Bible. And no it is not widely accepted that the gospels were forgeries. You'll still find many intelligent, respectable scholars who accept their authenticity. And it's wrong to automatically dismiss the facts of his life as 'wild' or 'irrational'. They are NOT unbelievable. Or no less difficult to believe than the idea of the world just coming together all on its own, by sheer accident, when logic says that if something is put together, someone has to put it together. But that's a whole different debate. The comment above is an example of bigotry in itself, and people need to realize that when they wrong opinions. We wouldn't be doing anything like that about other faiths, and Christianity should be no different, period. People are free to believe what they want, but they shouldn't feel the need to go around mocking other peoples' beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's stay on the facts, okay?

I deleted the stuff about Barbara Walker's theory. It was completely POV and non-Wiki-compatible. Wikipedia is supposed to stay on facts, not assumptions, and any assumptions are to marked as such. Granted, not everybody likes Christianity or even tolerates it, but Wikipedia is not intended to be a medium of propaganda or hatred. If we are to discuss on linguistics, let us then also stay on linguistics and historical facts, such as transformation of the initial 'v' phonem on Latin first syllable into 'b' in Western Roman languages, on truncation of first syllables in polysyllablic words in Vulgar Latin, missions of St. Boniface in the 8th century and generic history of Dark Ages. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th centuries weren't exactly the golden era of religious tolerance anywhere in the world, and especially not amongst the illiterate barbarians in tribal societies, be they nominally Arian, Catholic or sacrificing humans to Wotan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk • contribs)

You're wrong. The Goths established their kingdom by merging german and roman laws. They accepted any religion without any discrimination before they adopted catholicism. The roman catholic clergy was equal and as powerfull as the wisigoths rulers, so after the conversion of the goths the king was elected by the roman clergy. The famous rules against jews raised after the conversion. They were in addition no racial laws at all, but religious ones demanding for conversion. The spanish jews were not hebrew people at all but mixed blood of hebrew, and a large part of converted roman, goths and numerous slavs and saxons slaves traded from Frank kingdom, and property of the local Jews. Most of Spanish Jews had European origin.Gollan 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To Gib(raltar)

The D-day code name BIGOT was the reverse of to gib, or to gibraltar. I read this somewhere and am looking for the source. if anyone else knows or finds a source before me then I think that might be a helpful explanation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coffeetable (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you be correct and bigoted?

What's here is good, but it leaves me with the question I arrived here with: can you be quite correct, but because you won't hear any further discussion (and perhaps have reached your conclusion hastily) bigoted? I don't see why not, but I'm not certain it's so. Ndaniels 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. Bigotry is not being intolerant to the truth, it is being intolerant to opinion. Sioraf (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree with this, for those intolerant of or to the truth are usually regarded as ignorant, first and intolerant, second. Yet a case could be made for intolerance being of first importance, by those who believe, "We are all one." If such be true, then indeed our intolerance and our ignorance of that would-be truth could be regarded as equally incompatible with our group or species existence. At any event intolerance and ignorance seem to be related in practice -- and both are generally regarded as illegal. 71.51.75.35 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct and overbearingly so usually gets described as "self-righteous;" in the instances of practice demonstrated in the world, however such practices are usually related to a kind of fascism and hence, bigotry of a powerful majority, knowing, or those in power -- financially or politically. The "bigoty" of a minority is generally viewed as somewhat amusing, until such time as that minority comes to hold power and does itself continue the traditions of institutionalized bigotry, e.g. segregation, defamation by continued insults, unwarranted or frivolous censorship, crude degrading jokes and demeaning behaviors. 71.51.73.23 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes as long as you didn't consider all sides before rejecting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.8.221 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Should Mel be on that list?

Shoudn't Mel Gibson have at least an asterisk next to his name like sport players do when their achievments are tainted in some fashion, like steroids? To say Mel Gibson is a bigot when intoxicated is not quite fair when placed up against the others in the Famous Bigots list that had their views espoused while of clear mind.68.62.156.237 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Phinehas from the Attack Machine forum.

• The list of famous bigots may be topical, but could potentially cause the page to be very messy. lets be frank: the list could potentially be thousands of names long. I have removed it. If there must be a List of famous bigots, i suggest making a new page, and keeping it separate from the actual definition of bigotry. Deatonjr 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What is a pricilianist? "..but they went into a serial of measures against pagans, pricilianists, heretics and Jews..."

Neil916's Attempt To Censor Article Editing

User:Neil916 is trying to prevent anyone from editing the article.Wolfowit 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, including vandals. And vandalism is quickly reverted. Neil916 (Talk) 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you are too ignorant to understand my edits, does not mean it's vandalism. People like you censor valid contributions, while ignore real subtle vandalisms.Wolfowit 18:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bigotry

Shouldn't this article contain something about how the subjects of anti-bigotry often claim that anti-bigotry is bigotry? Llor N' Kcor (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We have seen some examples of this in various charges leveled in the political arena within the past year: that the current administration is somehow, better and more inclusive. This type of fallacious logic is covered in the posturing concepts discussed under Denial, particularly in the reversal of the historical victim-operator positioning which occurred with the election of a black President. 71.51.75.35 (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis

The German article describes a phenomenon of "unreflected piety", the English article describes a phenomenon of "prejudice, bias" -- these are not identical. In French, the meaning seems to be in between these two -- a primarily religious-based sense of being right. Therefore, I am hesitant to remove the interwiki-link to German or to English. As long as the French article links to both, though, bots keep replacing the interwikis between English and German, even though there have been two subtle shifts in meaning resulting in a sufficiently large change in meaning to no longer warrant the interwiki-link. How can I solve this?--Bhuck (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not having found a more satisfactory solution, I am also going to cap the French interwiki--bots keep replacing the German interwiki which is misleading and does not reflect the shift in meaning.--Bhuck (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Visigoths

I removed the sentence "Certainly the Visigoths did behave in a manner which might have given birth to the expression, as they adopted harsh policies against all other religions after their conversion to Catholicism." because it wasn't part of the citations. I had a look but I couldn't find any real evidence that the Visigoths were more prone to bigotry than their contemporaries. Spiny Norman86.95.110.209 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top, one believes the Visigoths were largely associated with an Heresy of Christianity called, Arianism. As such their world was introduced to an inter-Christian bigotry including multiple martyrdoms, exilings and persecutions. Of course that religious "bigotry" was preceded in hundreds of years by the bigotry exhibited by the earlier religious who generated, with persecutions, torture, murders and martyrdoms, the very basic formations of Christianity itself. 71.51.75.35 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The article (and this talk page) seems to imply that a bigot is defined as a person who is intolerance of others' opinions. By that definition, racism would not be a form of bigotry. However, I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that racism was anything other than a type of bigotry (anti-Semitism being another, sexism being yet a third, etc.). So I think the definition given here needs to be modified at least somewhat. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many American speakers in the middle to late 20th century broadened the definition to make it synonymous to intolerance, while others, including those in other countries, continue to prefer the older, narrower idea which, lacking a synonym, would become nameless if its name were made a synonym to intolerance. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your definition is useless and without modern attribution.67.169.48.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

does anyone know a set of words to use referring to black people and racist people? should i say african american and bigots and colored people. or am i being racist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.236.114 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted it below again but it also seems relevant here. Can we please do what the most *basic* requirement is of any Wikipedia article and source major claims? This page is clearly, in large part, about the definition of the word. Shockingly no one has bothered to source the definition of the word, instead assuming it based on no sources. Where is the dictionary definition? Am I seriously the only one noticing this? PLEASE FIX! 24.150.131.77 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Intolerance, irrationality, and animosity?

Is there a source for, "the correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs," as a requirement for bigotry? Is it just a proposed definition? I've seen it quoted all over the net, but everywhere it's cited, it seems to reference this article. Myca (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also thought that that seemed quite strict to go without a source... 87.22.38.235 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that it is more if an inability or unwillingness to consider other beliefs which means that you can be right and a bigot. OED seems to back me up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.8.221 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

page format

Maybe I misunderstand how wikipedia should be, but when I see a table of contents, I expect the main body to come after the table of contents and what comes before it should be only introduction. The problem that I'm seeing here is that, after the table of contents, there's nothing about what bigotry is or anything that seems like it should be the main idea of this page. Should some content from the introduction be moved to the main body below the table of contents? 87.22.38.235 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge June 2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no action Mirokado (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

There was a suggestion to merge Discrimination into Bigotry, by User:Gregcaletta (talk). I have closed a previous move request, moved a relevant comment here with an added tag for clarity and added my own comment. Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So the whole passage on etymology

Is linked with a dead link. Smells like original research to me. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/HistSciTech/HistSciTech-idx?type=turn&entity=HistSciTech000900240251&isize=L — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogomemnon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

oppose I think that merging discrimination into this article is the worst idea. The opposite might work but Discrimination is such a well written thorough article. Bigotry is extremely short. Don't support this.-Angelofpeace (moved by Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

oppose Discrimination is a social phenomenon or an action of one or more people. Bigotry is an attitude which can lead to discrimination among other actions. The two are completely different. The Bigotry article in particular is in need of improvement but the subject deserves its own article (unless it is moved into a subsection of an article called Pig ignorance.) Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of the word: Bigot

I am not an academic by any means, but could bigot stem from the word 'misbegot' which is a fancy way of saying 'born out of wedlock'? It's just a thought, and it wouldn't be the first time a word corrupts at some point and becomes a word with another meaning.

Personally I'm glad that we no longer stigmatise women and the children who are born 'out of wedlock'. I always wondered why it was the man who got off, scot free. I'm a man myself. It's always intrigued me. And I suppose if bigot did come from misbegot, then what a glorious full-circle the word has come? To be able to describe someone who is intolerant towards children being born out of what they consider marriage as a bigot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.172.45 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

On the same subject but from a different angle, I'm kind of surprised that Wikipedia does not refer to some source for the actual definition of the word. One would think this would be the first thing to do on a page that describes the word bigotry. Can we please get some reputable dictionary sources to define bigotry? Quoting Sir Oliver Wendell Holmes about what he thinks on bigotry is a nice touch, but its obviously insufficient as a rigorous support for the proposed definition. 24.150.131.77 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC) at what part did you define the word

When is critique not bigotry

Needs to expand to clarify When is critique not bigotry. For example disagreement with Homosexuality. --Inayity (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do not like roller coasters then you are bigoted against roller coasters?

Why is it considered that if something or someone repulses you then you are considered a bigot? If you have a fear of something or are disturbed by someone why would it be considered morally wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.35.172 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Current definition is opposite of what I learned it was

Never thought I'd live to be old enough to see a word change meanings. My old dictionaries define the word:

• "One blindly and obstinately devoted to party or creed" ("The Standard Diary Dictionary," William Collins Sons & Co. 1968. This is a pocket dictionary.)
• "One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." ("Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary," G & C Merriam Co. 1973.)
• "One obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion."Webster's New International Dictionary," 2nd edition, G & C Merriam Co., 1952)

The way it's defined here makes Bill Maher look like a bigot for criticizing religious bigots. (Google: bill maher bigot.) I will revisit this again with a proposed rewrite of the lede paragraph/definition. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Word Origin

In history we were taught that the word originated from "By God[ites]", referring to Protestants who had what would now be a slogan, "By God I shall burn but I shall not turn". This would tie in with the dates quoted in the article. Acorn897 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

See if you can find a reliable source. Bali88 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Around 1900, the word bigot meant in French someone who has an excessive, narrow or petty religious devotion. For instance, the Le Nouveau Larousse Illustré – Dictionnaire universel encyclopédique (1897-1904 - 2nd volume, page 77) defines:

BIGOT, OTE (origine douteuse ; le mot date du XIIe siècle) Qui a une dévotion mal entendue, étroite, mesquine - translated: BIGOT, OTE (dubious origin; the word dates from the XIIth century) Who has a mistaken, narrow, petty religious devotion.Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Different definitions in British and American English

The problem people are having here is that Americans and Brits use the word differently. The definition as given by the two largest British dictionaries (Oxford and Cambridge) is that of someone who is highly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them. The definition in the American dictionaries also includes the concept of racism . In other words, it can mean being intolerant simply of a class of people, irrespective of their views. Basically, in American English the word can mean the same as the British definition, but it can also be used as a synonym for racism.2001:8003:400B:D301:9430:B2F3:BCF:ABCB (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this well needed change. Obviously, the previous definition was clearly missing one important meanings of the word. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned up the very garbled etymology part. But why is this on Wikipedia in the first place? I see no potential whatsoever for this to be ever anything more than a dictionary entry.

I also fail to see how the British and American definitions are different, the word is a term of abuse for any political enemy, i.e. anyone who states views with which you disagree, as long as the debate climate is hostile. For people who are mostly interested in religious schism, it will be about religious prejudice, and for people who are mostly interested in racism, it will be about racial prejudice. The definition does not "include" these fields, the dictionaries cited just give a list of common applications, as in "such as religion, politics, or race".

But more to the point, any possible differences in meaning should be discussed at wikt:bigotry, because this is exactly the kind of thing why Wikitionary was made a project separate from Wikipedia to begin with.

--dab (𒁳) 11:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirected

The page was proposed for deletion. Rather than lose the page history, or create redlinks in the many pages that link here, I redirected it to Prejudice, as someone had suggested in June 2016. However, there was little to merge, as this page was not an article on the topic, but consisted largely of detailed anecdotes about possible etymologies of the word "bigot". The chief of these was already covered briefly at Wiktionary. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)