Template talk:Discrimination sidebar/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Previous templates at this name

Apparently, there was a previous template at Template:Discrimination sidebar, but was meant as an administrative tag. This is not an administrative tag but is meant as a topical area template. (Ergo it is not subject to speedy, etc.) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 05:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are there two Discrimination Templates?
Should probably delete. I started with this one, but decided there was too much to fit in a horizontal box, and the topic range was more fitting for a vertical box. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

I added also Anti-Semitism. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination WikiProject

Looking to start a WikiProject for discrimination articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Discrimination - Keith D. Tyler 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This now exists; see banner above. - Keith D. Tyler 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alignment

I don't like the recent changes that caused lines (and links) to wrap and made the edges look more jagged. The narrowness and extra jaggedness also makes the template vertically very long, which some pages had been concerned about -- the template was longer than the page. Could we neaten it back up a bit somehow? - Keith D. Tyler 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The removal of BR's and the addition of {{nobr}}'s has helped a lot IMO. - Keith D. Tyler 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Added to most articles

I've added the template to many articles ot references, agree that it could be formatted a bit tighter so it's not so long but otherwise great job! Benjiboi 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Determination

To reiterate what I asserted in the summary for my last edit (a revert, btw): If there is any doubt that an article's topic is legitimate, it is not for us here to determine or decide, but base this on the manner by which the topic is presented by Wikipedia in its article. In other words: it's not the job of a topic area template (like this) to determine legitimacy of a topic; that is done in the development of the article on the topic. This should probably go for any other inclusion decision: if the Wikipedia article on the topic asserts or acknowledges a direct relation to discrimination, as well as legitimacy (or, I'd argue, a legitimate effect, as with blood libel), it's suitable for inclusion in this template. (And if you have a beef with that determination, take it up with the article, not this template.) - Keith D. Tyler 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Developing horizontal form

Discussion on a horizontal form is occuring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination and a draft is at Template:Discrimination sidebar/Horizontal. - Keith D. Tyler 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, people! I hope that discussion proceeds quickly, because this is the worst of its kind yet. It makes both Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar and Template:War look pleasantly inconspicuous. And for the love of all that is good, please limit yourselves even in the horizontal template. Calling it "less-obtrusive" is like describing a rhino in one's bedroom as being "less-bulky" when compared to an elephant in the living room.
Peter Isotalo 21:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guess what: There's a hell of a lot of discrimination in the world. And Wikipedia covers quite a bit of it. - Keith D. Tyler 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a Hell of a lot of everything in the world, be it dung beetles or operas. This is a textbook example of summary style being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. And for crying out loud; lookism, Anglophobia, Kahanism! No way are these topics notable enough to be included in the same template as antisemitism, racism or sexism.
Peter Isotalo 05:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion in the same template doesn't imply equality of notability. - Keith D. Tyler 17:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And rhetorical replies of that sort don't exactly convey a sense of empathy or respect. Readers aren't supposed to be overwhelmed with huge lists when they should be provided with a reasonably limited number of core topics. A careful selection of links helps the reader to quickly find related and relevant articles, while a near-indiscriminate list where the choices are based on the idea that no one should feel left out merely annoys.
Peter Isotalo 08:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Seemingly every article in the discrimination series has editors passioned both for and against it. We are not judge and jury to decide which issues are most important so finding core topics is a bit premature, at least for now. Getting to your main point of the template being too large, we all seem to agree on that and have been working on a collapsed horizontal template that can be used instead. If there is a particular article(s) that we should switch out templates asap please let us know so we can start to look at those. Benjiboi 21:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Passioned editors should think harder about getting their priorities straight. We're here to compose articles with the general readership, not ourselves, in mind. And while the collapsing horizontal design cures the worst of the layout issues, it still presents those foolish enough to press the "show"-link with a rather unreasonable amount of detail.
Peter Isotalo 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Agreed that passioned editors could think a bit more but disagree that those who use the "show" link are foolish or are presented with too much information. What is WP but a buffet of too much information? This project is in its infancy and is doing its best to illuminate on the many nuances of discrimination. If you have constructive suggestions of what information should be cast aside or a way to better organize the information that would help alleviate the perceived short-comings then please share. Benjiboi 00:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking for empathy, I'm looking for a navigational template that reflects the breadth of the topical area. Nor do I see any benefit to the encyclopedia to decide that "this form of discrimination is worthy, but this form is not" nor do I find such practice to be an NPOV one. - Keith D. Tyler 17:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Side issue

The horizontal template is looking great. But when I try to use it a {{{1}}} appears after it. I can't see where this is coming from in the code, so its possible that I may be using it incorrectly--Cailil talk 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was broken somewhere in the middle, fixed now. - Keith D. Tyler 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Keith--Cailil talk 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Atheism in religious section is inconsistent with other articles/templates.

Atheism is listed as being able to be converted from within the article, List of notable people who converted to Christianity and it is listed in Template:Religious persecution (as a victim group along with other belief systems). Clearly it is conflated with other religious beliefs though may not be afforded the same tax breaks in many countries as those beliefs that have fanciful myths and legends. As the word "religions" is at the heart of the problem I've altered that to "beliefs" so as to allow persecution of these related belief systems to be sectioned. Ttiotsw 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This also makes it consistent with the existing template, Template:Belief_systems Ttiotsw 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Belief system and religion are not the same thing. Even then, atheism as a belief system is a little contentious. - Keith D. Tyler 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with changing the Religions section to a Beliefs section because "belief" can refer to many more things than the scope of that section. "Belief" could mean ID, conservatism, flat earth, moon landing hoax, etc. Although it also occurs to me that things like anti-communism could be considered valid forms of discrimination. But it could also take the project scope into some dubious territory. - Keith D. Tyler 17:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but within the scope of Wikipedia, religion and belief are seen as complementary terms, for example, with Category:Religion_and_belief-related_navigation_templates (it doesn't say "or" but uses "and") and Template:Belief_systems has a title of "Religious belief systems" which is wikilinked to "Religion" and includes Atheism/Agnosicism; I've just noticed the talk for that template has just been restarted to maybe say rename it to Template:Theological positions or something because of the difficulty in pigeon-holing Atheism/Agnostics.
Unless it's related to god or gods, other beliefs wouldn't fit right in that section. Ttiotsw 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)/ Ttiotsw 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Master template?

Not sure if it's possible but it would be nice to have one template or text for template that feeds the vertical and horizontal ones at the same time. Benjiboi 07:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like what's needed is the opposite of a template. - Keith D. Tyler 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, what I'm wondering is if there is a way to ensure the various forms of the template can be linked so that if a change is made to one it still matches the other. It might not be possible. Benjiboi 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Meaning that a template is a method to put variable content in a fixed structure, and what you're looking for is a way to put a variable structure on fixed content. - Keith D. Tyler 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Too early in the day for me! In any case i saw the alert on the template page and I think there is only two templates with the same content so maybe that will help. Benjiboi 01:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I wonder if the template pages should also have a bit of a warning that instructs what articles are appropriate (or not) and to use talk page to propose changes that may easily be seen as controversial. Benjiboi 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages archives

Hi, could someone (I vote for Keith again!) please start an archive for this page's closed discussions so it's easier to keep track of open issues? thank you! p.s. I've proded some recent template editors to use this talk page to avoid back and forth editing. Benjiboi 17:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Counter Movements / Men's Rights

This is originally posted on the Talk:Feminism page.

I don't have much time today, so I just wanted to quickly list my thoughts... There are a few things that we need to keep in mind while categorizing the "Men's Rights" pages:

  • Much of what is written on the "Masculinism" and "Men's Rights" pages is unsourced
  • Much of what is written on the "Masculinism" and "Men's Rights" pages is not neutral
  • There is no definition of the "men's movement" in terms of historical events or any semblance of coherant ideology that isn't a direct counter to feminism. What is the "men's rights movement"? It's hard to tell because there is no scholarly research (i.e. peer reviewed journals) on "Men's Rights" or "Masculinism"; therefore, we must ask if this is a "movement" or simply a group of people with enough time to put up webpages and wikipedia pages...;
  • In fact, they define themselves on several occasions on their Wikipedia pages as a direct counter of the "Women's Movement"
  • What's written on the Wikipedia pages about men's rights do not seem to correspond to reality (esp in the US, where the US websites claim that that men's rights are a direct counter to feminism) - who put these Wikipedia pages up and why? (esp. in light of them not being sourced); What counts as a "movement" anyway?--Bremskraft 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Replies are also at Talk:Feminism basically countering that sources need to be provided to back up assertations that Masculinism and Men's Rights movements are solely or mainly counter movements. I'm reverting template edits for now and issue certainly can be revisited when more information is sourced on those articles. Benjiboi 04:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Also possibly renaming articles has been suggested. Benjiboi 04:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont support any notion for the purposes of this template (or for the Discrimination WikiProject for that matter) that one anti-discrimination movement is more valid or worthy than another. That is, in effect, discriminatory, and precisely the sort of thing I started WPDISC to work against. In turn, such a notion is POV. Furthermore, I don't believe in basing the validity of a topic based on the article content. The two are distinct. A topic's validity is not determined by the quality of its Wikipedia article. Finally, one given point of view should not be allowed to assert that one topic is superior to a conceptually parallel topic and therefore one of them should be degraded. By definition, masculinism is the male equivalent of feminism. This is not a place to debate the merits of the use of the term in practice or how it does or does not reflect that definition; nor is it a place to debate whether or not such a notion should be respected. In an encyclopedia which practices a neutral point of view, it should. - Keith D. Tyler 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyler, the problem is that both anti-feminist (or counter-feminist) and pro-feminist ideas are presented on the "Masculinism," "Men's Rights," and "Father's Rights" pages. For example, this is what's written at the beginning of the Men's Rights page: "Masculism provides a counterpart to feminism and argues against legal constructs, reforms, or entitlements which deny men equal rights under the law on the basis of gender; there are conservative "traditionalist", "liberal", and libertarian strands." and "Most Men's Rights advocates do not align themselves with "pro-feminist" men or their organisations.(citation needed) These men are commonly referred to within the movement as "collaborationists" or "manginas".(citation needed)" One gets a clear picture from this page that "men's rights" is a counter-feminist "movement."
Over on the "Masculinism," page, the "masculinism movement" is stated as having it's beginning "...from Ernest Belfort Bax, a socialist theoretician in the height of socialism at the beginning of the 20th century..." Bax was an "ardent anti-feminist" according to his Wikipedia page.
This takes us to our original point: We are trying to decide if "Masculinism" is a counter-movement, a part of feminism, or a "movement" that is separate entirely. Frankly, Tyler, you rhetoric does not quite fit in the valid debate we are having.--Bremskraft 06:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like the articles need work to become neutral and sourced properly. This project is not yet rating articles for class or quality as many projects do but both those articles sound like they have multiple problems and asking for peer review and support is called for. Benjiboi 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how you can on the one hand say that the page conflicts itself as to whether masculinism is anti-feminist, counter-genderist, or simply a (happily-coexisting) analogue to feminism; and then on the other hand -- in the same graf -- claim to get "a clear picture" as to which one it is. Regardless, this debate about how and why masculinism originated has nothing to do with whether and/or where it belongs in a navigational template. Both feminism and masculinism, on their face, deal with social and legal imbalances against a particular gender. That makes them both anti-discrimination movements. Nothing on masculinism includes hatred or repression of women among its tenets or interests, so it's not counter-discriminatory (and to say it is would be to imply that feminism is discriminatory). You've cherry-picked anti-feminist links from the article to prove that it is so, but the article does not back up that characterization. - Keith D. Tyler 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Tyler, I disagree with you on several accounts:
  • 1. "(...to say <masculinism is counter-descriminitory>would be to imply that feminism is discriminatory)" - I wanted to label these pages as counter anti-descriminitory because of what the pages say.
  • 2. "I fail to see how you can on the one hand say that the page conflicts itself as to whether masculinism is anti-feminist, counter-genderist, or simply a (happily-coexisting) analogue to feminism" - well, that's exactly it. I'm pointing out internal contradictions that are not sourced or explained on the page. On one hand, the sentence claims that "masculinism" is a "counterpart" to feminism, while at the same time claiming masculinism "argues against legal constructs, reforms, or entitlements which deny men equal rights under the law" - essentially claiming a) such laws exist and b) that women benefit from them, or in the very least not be subject to them - without being sourced. In other words, this is an attempt at equating feminism and masculinism as happily co-existing, while at the same time undermining that notion, by creating an overt tone that puts feminism at odds with masculinism. And this happens throughout the page.
  • 3. "Nothing on masculinism includes hatred or repression of women" - while this may be clear to you and me, this is not what one can take away from reading this masculinism page - that point simply isn't clear. To accuse me of cherry picking ignores the serious issues with the page.
  • 4. "how and why masculinism originated has nothing to do with whether and/or where it belongs in a navigational template." It certainly does have something to do with the page if that's part of the page (as I noted above).
Last, I would just like to point out that we are not just talking about the "Masculinism" page, but also the men's and father's rights pages. We should continue to discuss the problems with those pages as well - along with their placement in the template. --Bremskraft 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (p.s. forgive me for getting carried away with th bolding.)
1. I can't figure out what counter-anti-discriminatory means. I think it reflects a certain notion about the origins or original/partial motivation of the subject rather than its prima facie purpose or intent. 2. I think that you can be against both laws that give preference to men and laws that give preference to women -- this would in effect be a notion of gender equality. 3. See below. 4. See 1. and below.

Indent reset. Although your passion and interest is admirable my immediate impression is that the energy and time you're putting into persuading other editors could more effectively be used in improving either or both the articles you keep referencing. I think _all_ the discrimination project articles are controversial but not equally to everyone. Someone might feel exactly the way you do about another article we have on the template but our job is to organize and teach about discrimination. The absolute best way you can convince any editors on Wikipedia about the articles you think are misunderstood is to make constructive edits on those articles. You may be exactly right - the articles might be counter or anti-discriminatory but the articles have to demonstrate that in a well-researched and in a NPOV manner. If the article is well-written and well-researched it will be clear to most any reader and editor who reads it. The answer is to address the articles and let them speak for themselves. Benjiboi 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I completely agree with you. That's why I posted the following on a concurrent thread on the Talk:Feminism page (I simply don't have the time to do it myself):
Here are relevant starting points:
--Bremskraft 22:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Indent rest. Great. good research is the best route to go. For now keep all the postings about those article on their talk pages so we have the information and current discussion where it's most needed. keep up the good work! Benjiboi 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think this discussion is mixing topic relativity and article content. It sounds like Bremkraft is suggesting that, if the Masculinism et al articles were improved upon, they would (probably/maybe) be valid at their present location in the template, but since the articles don't make this sufficiently apparent, they should be categorized elsewhere (Bremkraft's category was "Anti-counter-discriminatory" which I can't wrap my head around). I don't really agree. I think categorization in a navigational template should be based on topic relation rather than article quality. I'm all for improving the articles, but that's a different matter than where they go in this template. - Keith D. Tyler 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tyler, yes, that is exactly my contention. As the articles stand now, they do not seem to be valid. "Anti Counter-discriminatory" was my feeble attempt at conforming to the template while acknowledging that the content of "Men's Rights" and "Masculinism" pages are not anti-discriminatory. --Bremskraft 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It would seem to me that in order to follow your categorization, some source showing that masculism is by definition discriminatory while feminism is by definition not. Aside from mentions that some of the originators of the topic were "anti-feminist" (which is not exactly the same thing as "anti-women"), the masculism article doesn't show that masculism is discriminatory. - Keith D. Tyler 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • {comment} It appears to me that there is a desire to assert discrimination purposefully as a POV and that somewhere herein lies a bias. Michael Flood, Randy Flood, Warren Farrell, Horn et al there is a plethora of published work that demonstrate the various groups termed male movements, design and purpose, they most certainly are not monolithic nor is feminism, this is my opinion: as I can I will attempt to add cited data where appropriate. If I may venture an additional comment: the assumption of egalitarian society, from a political science perspective is already the introduction of bias, and a bias from a defined Point of ViewBobV01 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The above comment from BobV01 is a multipost and exists verbatim at feminism [1].
This user has already been warned for soapboxing at talk:Project gender studies--Cailil talk 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lesbophobia

I would like to add the term lesbophobia to the template, beside Homophobia Biphobia and Transphobia. How do y'all feel about that? Kootenayvolcano 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to add a link to a new article that won't pass AFD muster. - Keith D. Tyler 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What leads you to believe it won't pass AfD muster"? The article has improved significantly in the past two or three days, & is now fairly well-sourced as well. I support Kootenayvolcano's request. --Yksin 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Keith- where can I find AfD policies? I am not familiar with them.Kootenayvolcano 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Deletion info in general can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy.. AfD stands for "Articles for deletion" and info can be found at WP:AFD. AfD is one on the ways in which articles can be proposed for deletion, the others being "speedy delete" which is for stuff that is pretty obvious on the face of it as being deletable (obvious nonsense, etc.) for almost instant deletion as soon as an admin sees an article marked with a speedy delete tag. "Proposed deletion" (prod) is the means by which Keith marked the Lesbophobia article for possible deletion -- basically, if no one had removed that tag within five days, it could then have been deleted. AfD is more involved -- it permits 7 days of discussion about whether an article should be kept or deleted. Best way of getting acquainted with how AfD works is to check in on current AfD discussions (linked from WP:AFD).
When I first saw the Lesbophobia article, I thought it likely it would fail AfD, but that was before WJBscribe (& and I, to a lesser extent) expanded the article & added citations which showed that (1) lesbophobia isn't in fact a neologism (the term has been around at least since 1994, is found in scholarly as well as popular literature); and (2) it is not a mere synonym for homophobia, but has additional characteristics not found with homophobia.
For these reasons, I would vote "Keep" for that article in any AfD discussion, & also support your suggestion to add lesbophobia to this template. --Yksin 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Having seen no further discussion on this issue, I went ahead and added Lesbophobia to both the vertical & horizonal versions of this template. As I said a couple of days ago, additions made to the article make it clear that (1) this term has been at use at least since 1994 (including in scholarly literature, as well as popularly), so is not a neologism; (2) has some characteristics that differentiate if from being merely another name for "homophobia directed at lesbians." Just a couple of days ago I found a South African newspaper article online which attributed lesbophobia amongst black people in South Africa for the recent rash of rapes and murders of black lesbian activists in that country, because these women were perceived as having stepped out of line from their socially approved roles as women -- i.e., sexism as well as "classic homophobia" play a part in lesbophobia. It's a unique form of discrimination not adequately described by homophobia. --Yksin 01:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's utterly offensive to include heterophobia (WTF??) alongside discrimination like homophobia and racism. WHY? Because heterophobia doesn't even exist. People are not killed because they are straight, you don't hear people shout "You are so fucking straight man. That's like well like disgusting like dude like, innit like?".

Too long.

This template is too long due to the large number of links. I feel that is should be reduced to the major topics only. The major topics can then have their own templates. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The template is two to three times longer than some of the articles it links to. 192.75.68.254 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd need to see a concrete proposal for these major topics & major topic templates, & a lot more discussion, before I'd ever agree to such a change. --Yksin 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The theplate is, like, 3 feet long now and occupies too much artucle space. Pleae onsider splitting it into several .`'Míkka 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree that it is too long, especially for a sidebar template (even with the collapsing). Removing a bunch of the duplication will help some. Should consider splitting off some areas. (Might also consider the overlap with templates like Template:Rights and Template:Human rights. Anti-discriminatory movements might better be covered as a separate template - either as movements, or the underlying rights, possibly combined with part of the human rights template.) Zodon (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Deprogragramming

An editor added deprogramming to this template without any explanation. I've never heard of "deprogramming" as a form of discrimination. Do we have a source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My only guess is that they just got back from seeing Hairspray. - Keith D. Tyler 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Nah, although I do use it on occasion... ;) so, references:

Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History

By Philip Jenkins p206

The Future of New Religious Movements By David G. Bromley, Phillip E. Hammond p116

Understanding Social Problems By Linda A. Mooney, Caroline Schacht, David Knox p237

Sfacets 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since these are not online sources, please quote the passages which refer to deprogramming as "discrimination". I'll remove it until we've agreed on the interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Deprogramming is more politically oriented than discrimination oriented. You can't deprogram a person to stop being black, or Armenian, or female, or short. Maybe you can "deprogram" them not to be Catholic, but that would probably fall under religious conversion or even forced conversion. The jury's out on whether or not you can "deprogram" someone to stop being gay, but likewise there's a specific article for that. And these would be manifestations of discrimination, not forms of discrimination in themselves. Note that the template does not include, for example, antiliberalism, and I don't believe it should. - Keith D. Tyler 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientology

Why is Scientology in the list of discriminators? nickyaberdeen 12:04, 6 September 2007

That's nuttier than Scientology itself. I'm removing it. wikipediatrix 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because... they don't like psychiatrists?.... Be sure to remove it from the horizontal version as well. Good spot. --Yksin 19:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Luigifan (talk · contribs) readded Scientology to the template, answering Wikipediatrix's edit summary "uh... why is Scientology listed alongside the Nazis and KKK as a discriminatory group?" with the edit summary "I don't know, but I presume that there's a reason." Well, I presume there was a reason too, but darned if I know what it is, or if it's a valid reason by Wikipedia standards. Scientology was initially added to the template on 30 August 2007 by 130.18.210.150 (talk · contribs) with no reason or justification for its addition given whether in edit summary or no this talk page. Therefore I've removed it again. Please do not readd it without discussion here, & adequate justification that meets Wikipedia policies. --Yksin 20:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Scientology is routinely mentioned in US Dept. of State Human Rights reports as a religion that is discriminated against and it should be added to that part of the template. --Justanother 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is an article dedicated to discrimination against it. - Keith D. Tyler 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Polygamy

I just reverted the addition by 67.160.86.233 (talk · contribs) of Polygamy to the "Related topics" section of the template -- since it hardly seems to fit with the other topics there (Bigotry · Prejudice · Supremacism · Intolerance · Tolerance · Diversity · Multiculturalism · Political correctness · Reverse discrimination · Eugenics · Racialism · Speciesism). Please don't add it back without justification for why you think it has anything to do with discrimination. --Yksin 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm averse to the inclusion of "discrimination against practices", generally, because it becomes "discrimination against an idea" which is not the sort of thing this or the WPDISC project is dealing with. - Keith D. Tyler 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Isolationism

I'm puzzled by the inclusion of Isolationism on this template. Can somebody please explain how it falls within the scope of the definition of Discrimination as used for the purposes of this template? Cgingold 13:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed. The "isol" article says noting. `'Míkka 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the dispute on 'Counter-discriminatory'

The topics in question are noted as controversal on their articles, and are not described, overall, as being discriminatory. Therefore, they cannot be described as discriminatory in this template. 'Counter-discriminatory' is non-POV and indisputably accurate; no-one, I think, disputes that they are policies intended to counter discrimination. Whether this makes them themselves another form of discrimination is hotly contested, so things such as templates or categories should not make that claim. --Aquillion 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, we should not be making claims regarding whether or not AA and the like are counter-discriminatory at all. They're quite obviously discrimination (which is not necessarily a bad thing), since they single out certain groups for benefits not provided to other groups, which is basically the positive definition of discrimination. (If you're a "glass-half-empty" kind of person, you could flip that around of course and say the definition is singling out certain groups for punishments not given to others groups, but the idea's the same.) It's not our job to divinate whether or not these measures are counters to discrimination. What is indisputable, I think, is that they are indeed discrimination. (Things like abolition, on the other hand, are truly anti-discriminatory.)
Also, I hope you forgive my recent revert (I simply hadn't noticed you'd responded yet). If you want, change it back and I will refrain from ever reverting again unless we can reach consensus on this. Matt Yeager ? (Talk?) 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Discrimination: Different treatment of groups due to supremacy or stereotype.
  • Anti-discrimination: Opposing different treatment of groups.

In some sense, AA fits both terms, because it opposes the substandard treatment of a group (e.g. black people) and applies an inverse of an existing discrimination to attempt to create a balance in treatment of groups.

At the time I organized the template I could not come up with a good term to fit these concepts into. As I said, they tend to fit into either of the above two seemingly opposite categories. Thinking of the term counterintelligence, which is the use of espionage tactics to nullify preexisting espionage tactics, I developed "counter-discriminatory", as the use of discrimination to nullify preexisting discrimination. The term does have minimal use elsewhere but unfortunately is far from common. Oh well. IAR, BOLD, and all that, I figured.

  • Counter-discrimination: Different treatment of groups to oppose existing different treatment of groups.

So to respond to Aquillon's point, the term "counter-discrimination" does not suggest that they are not discriminatory; quite the contrary. As for whether a template should be making the distinction; he's right, it shouldn't -- but if the article makes that distinction (see e.g. the opening sentence of Reservation in India), then for the template it is only a matter of cataloging the article in a self-identified class.

Anyway, since that time, I have noted that there is a term known as positive discrimination which seems to be a more accepted term. Would a "positive discrimination" section separate from the "discrimination" and "anti-discrimination" sections be a more acceptable solution? - Keith D. Tyler 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed Matt's ES on Template:Discrimination sidebar:

counter-discriminatory" is a pov--it's not our job to judge what is good or bad discrimination, simply what IS discrimination)

This is a misimplication. "Counter-discrimination" is not prima facie necessarily good or bad compared to standard discrimination and nothing is implied by the terms. There is no POV in saying that something is counter to something else unless you have already applied POV to that something else. - Keith D. Tyler 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not interested in arguing with any editors here over what we consider discrimination, or meanings of the term, or whether anything that involves discriminating between two different categories of things at all belongs on this template. On the articles themselves, these topics are described as controversial; it is noted that opponents frequently c call them discriminatory, but the articles themselves do not term them such. It is merely sufficient for you to understand, Matt, that your definition of Affirmative Action et all as discriminatory practices is (as noted on the relevant articles) controversial and not widely accepted. Therefore, it is inappropriate to call them discriminatory via templates. Counter-discriminatory, meanwhile, simply means a practice intended to counter discrimination; it is noncontroversial. If you want the template to call affirmative action discriminatory, you must provide sources that it is universally seen as such, and rewrite the articles as appropriate. Your own semantic arguments carry no weight. --Aquillion 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I should add: I am not particularly attached to 'counter discriminatory' as a term; that is merely what it was originally, and what I have been reverting it to. I do not think that there is serious room to argue that any of these topics can be grouped under discriminatory; the articles themselves plainly note that such a designation is controversial and used primarily by the program's opponents. But I would be open to any neutral term (simply categorizing them under related might be a good compromise for now; that much, at least, is non-controversial). --Aquillion 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that if the question of whether they are discriminatory or not is contested, then a third "category" is all the more suitable. With that in mind I'd like to see C-A remain. - Keith D. Tyler 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see what you all have written, and you make many good points. I still don't think "counter-discriminatory" is a good name for it (though it's far better than "positive discrimination" with regards to POV!), but I'm struggling to find a better one. Perhaps "related" is the best name for it (there may be a better one out there somewhere, but "related" is nuetral and clearly shows that affirmative action isn't in the same league as internment, for example). Would that be acceptable to everyone for now? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's been two years. I don't know what happened after this post, but I'm going to remove Affirmative Action from "Discriminatory" (--it's already in "Counter-Discriminatory"), and I'm going to change "Counter-Discriminatory" to "Related." I'm not sure if the dispute was actually resolved here, but I find placing Affirmative Action either under "Discriminatory" or "Anti-Discriminatory" highly-contentious. Some people think it is, and some think it isn't, and I don't really see how to resolve that problem without an editor artificially synthesizing or determining which is correct. I'll make this edit, and see what happens.98.16.26.157 (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Specieism

I would like to see speciesism added to primary forms, speciesism is probably the most prevalent form of discrimination on the planet at this very moment with likely the most dire consequences. -- Librarianofages 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it fits with the theme of this template at all. futurebird 02:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, perhaps I'm daft, but how are animals not being discriminated against? -- Librarianofages 02:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be added back. Sfacets 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously, I agree, but we have to discuss this with other editors and try to reach a consensus before we add it back, allowing enough time for them to reply. -- Librarianofages 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything else in the template is about humans. Besides it's insulting and belittling to the struggles of people who face discrimination to compare them to animals. Human rights are not the same as animal rights. And that's not to say that animals don't have any rights. It is off topic. futurebird 03:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your Original Research - the template is about discrimination, not human discrimination. Sfacets 03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to point this out but humans are in fact animals. We are apes. Your comment is both insulting and belittling not just to the animals being discriminated against but also to those who continue to struggle for the rights of all sentient being. Some of those engaged in the struggle against speciesism are from a wide variety of groups that discriminated against in society and see a direct correlation between their struggles and the struggles of the voiceless. Prenna 02:12am, 30 October 2007 [UTC]

No, you are wrong. This template is about human discrimination, there are no other articles on the template on "non-human" discrimination. By your logic we'd need to include the biases people no doubt have about inanimate objects as well. I know this isn't the best way to make a point, but let's look at some definitions.

  • unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
  • An intentional or unintentional act which adversely affects employment opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, marital status, or national origin, or other factors such as age (under particular laws.) See Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  • One form of behavior that shows prejudice, but not the only form. Discrimination is the failure to treat people in the same way because of a bias toward some of them because of some characteristic--such as race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, disability--which is irrelevant.
  • A situation in which a plan, through its provisions or through its operations, favors highly compensated employees to the detriment of other employees.
  • means making differences and distinctions among people, ideas, places and things. Treating people differently with respect to employment because of their race, color, sex, national origin, age, religion, or disability is considered illegal discrimination.
  • Unequal treatment of persons on grounds which are not justifiable in law, eg in the UK, discrimination on the grounds of sex or race.
  • The denial of opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups because of prejudice and for other arbitrary reasons.
  • Discrimination refers to the process of illegally differentiating between people on the basis of group membership rather than individual merit.
  • behavior that treats people unequally.

They mention all kinds of people... but never animals. They do mention "things" but I don't think they mean animals by that. futurebird 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually they never do specify that it is confined to humans. And they mention things. [2]. If this template was about human discrimination, it would be titled as such. Sfacets 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We could change the title if that would help. Animals are not things, they are beings, they are alive.... futurebird 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Furthermore the fact that you would say "Besides it's insulting and belittling to the struggles of people who face discrimination to compare them to animals" something like this would indicate to me that you are not being impartial and are trying to represent speciesist views. If you haven't noticed, we are animals. -- Librarianofages 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's just do an RFC or something, or wait untill some other editors get here. I seriously doubt either one of us is impartial. (Who ever is?) futurebird 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it should be added. The fact that people are arguing that it shouldn't be included shows exactly how riddled with speciesism our society is. Speciesism has been directly identified in texts such as Animal Liberation by notable philosopher Peter Singer, The Dreaded Comparison by Marjorie Spiegel, and Eternal Treblinka by Charles Patterson. The term itself was coined in 1973. There is a wiki page about this form of discrimination. If people are honest with themselves their objections are based on personal philosophy/ethics, not on the notability of the term. This is even highlighted by one individual, when starting to lose the debate, stating that title of template should be changed to Human Discrimination. This kind of goal-post shifting is fundamentally un-wiki in my opinion. Prenna 02:22am 30th October 2007 [UTC]

RFC: deciding if specieism should be in the template

link to talk page We need some help deciding if specieism should be in the template that appears on the pages about discrimination.

If the template's scope is meant to be discrimination by human beings toward other human beings, suggest specieism remains left out and template renamed/retitled "Human discrimination".
If the template's scope is meant to be discrimination by human beings toward other living things (and, I guess, non-living things) then retain specieism and current template name/title. Are there any other forms of discrimination that would then be missing from the template? Sardanaphalus 10:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Tend to agree with the above. I suppose we could potentially add any articles relating to discrimination against Artificial intelligence as well, if such an article is ever created. But I'm not asking anyone to do so, OK? But defining the scope of the template would probably be the best way to answer this question one way or another. John Carter 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The template seems to be about Discrimination - with (pun intended) no discrimination towards which species it applies to. Dictionary definitions of the word say nothing about the word pertaining exclusively to humans. The title of the template is not "human to human discrimination". Sfacets 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is goal-post shifting per Prenna's comment above, it would seem to me that seeking to narrow the template and changing the name to something like "human discrimination" would be denying the problem of specieism exists. I realise that specieism isn't accepted by a lot of people as a problem, but then neither are sexism, racism or religious intolerance in a lot of countries. -- Librarianofages 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is saying that it isn't a problem. It's just not the same kind of problem. It's not a Human Rights issue it's an Animal Rights issue. OK? All humans have the same rights. Even animal rights activists acknowledge that the rights animals should have are different. Animals aren't disenfranchised from voting, animals don't have their humanity denied by other people (but they may have other things denied), animals aren't trying to get equal opportunities in the work place, no one is fighting for the right for animals to attend better schools, animals aren't excluded and teased when they are in school for their weight, animals don't have any issues with equal pay for equal work... I could go on...um... but I won't. You get the idea. Only goal post that has been shifted is the one that says that this template ought to be about something other than human discrimination. futurebird 03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
But thats not what this template is about, it is about discrimination, not human rights & the template isn't exclusively about humans so why shouldn't speciesism be there as a primary form? you can easily draw paralells between racism (eg. African-American slavery and Meat Production). Just because you yourself are speciesist doens't mean that this form of discrimination based on species membership does not exist. -- Librarianofages 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore while non-human animals may not suffer some forms of discrimination some human animals do, they are faced with discrimination not felt by most modern human animals, eg. slavery, torture, murder, etc. Why you wouldn't consider a beings right to existence without the pain of slavery, torture and murder as not being disenfrachised to an extreme extent is beyond me. -- Librarianofages 04:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


We aren't debating rights here, we are debating discrimination, or rather the template on discrimination. Rights have no place here. They might have a place on the human rights template (is there one?) but this isn't the place to discuss them. Sfacets 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speciesism should not be on the template. The template name should not be changed. We don't have "discrimination between hot and cold" on there, or "vowel discrimination", although they are both also kinds of discrimination? Why? Because they don't relate to the rest of the template. If anything, speciesism belongs on the "Animal rights" template. - Francis Tyers · 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, you're mistaken. First of all we aren't talking about grammatical issues or the relative heat of something, rather we are talking about discrimination against beings. It's also great that you bring up the idea that speciesism would not be related to the rest of the topics mentioned on the template because in fact, you are wrong again. For you see, this whole template is in fact about discrimination against animals albeit in its current form mainly about human animals (try not to forget that we are animals), all we are saying is that [[specieism] should be added as a primary form because it is yet another form of discrimination (quite comparable to that of any of the other primary forms). Think 200 years ago, United States, were slaves not thought of as animals, not worthy of any life of their own? I would like people to draw these parallels and try to remain impartial. -- Librarianofages 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Animals aren't people. - Francis Tyers · 11:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that, but people are a species of animal, yes. -- Librarianofages 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The template is about people discriminating against people. Not for example people discriminating between smells, although that also is a form of discrimination. - 193.145.230.5 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The template is about discrimination full stop, the fact that speciesism is not included on the template that is called "discrimination", not "human discrimination" is in fact offensive and suggests that wikipedia has an inherent bias. You're quite right when you say that smell discrimination could go on the template, but why should it when speciesism isn't? When speciesism is more prevalent than racism, sexism and ageism put together? All are comparable, all are primary forms. -- Librarianofages 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speciesism should not be included on this template, nor should the name of the template be changed. As a litmus test, consider the Wikipedia entry for discrimination, to which this template directly related. Quoting directly from that article, it states, "Most broadly, Discrimination is to recognize qualities and differences of certain things or persons and making choices based on those qualities. This article focuses on discrimination amongst people- that is, discrimination based on personal qualities." This template should retain the same criteria. --Littledrummrboy 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While you're correct that the article "discrimination" focuses on discrimination between human animals your quote also leaves open the possibility of discrimination against non-human animals: "Most broadly, Discrimination is to recognize qualities and differences of certain things or persons and making choices based on those qualities" replace "things" with "non-human animals" and you have specieism. Problematically the reason we have left out reference to any form of discrimination against any animals other than human animals in this article would appear to be specieism itself, otherwise, the article itself would be called "human discrimination" or "discrimination among humans". -- Librarianofages 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your comment about the "most broad" definition stated in the definition, by that reasoning, there's no more need to include speciesism then there is, for example, discrimination between the colors red and blue. Using the most broad definition would include all of the infinite types of discrimination, and I think many would agree that's not the purpose of this template; if we narrow the focus, there's no need for speciesism to get special consideration. --Littledrummrboy 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
While many "might agree" about anything at all, it's irrelevant what this supposed "many" might or might not agree on. We are not seeking to define the original purpose of the template, we are seeking to expand it to include the concept of "speciesism" within it, what I can't see is why you are so slavishly dedicated to the idea that humans are unique in their suffering at the hands of discrimination?

Therefore As long as this template is named "discrimination" it would be criminal not to include speciesism, if it were perhaps named "human discrimination" I would have to concede that you have a point and that speciesism has no place on it, but the fact that it is only named "discrimination" would seem to me that people are seeking to deny or ignore the reality of speciesism, which is tasteless and wrong. -- Librarianofages 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just some clarification and additional support for my earlier statements. Before, I stated that this template should be in accord with the Wikipedia article on discrimination itself. In addition to that article, Both WikiProject Discrimination and the Discrimination portal uphold the definition which pertains solely to homo sapiens, as may a reasonable person assessment of this template as it currently stands. You stated that it is a manifestation of speciesism that such is the case, and I can't say I disagree; however, it would seem then that the place for your argument would be the WikiProject on Countering systemic bias, not here within the template itself.
That having been said, I fail to see why speciesism warrants special exception. Based on the earlier cited article on discrimination, which appears in a medium that, based on our participation, we all show faith in, the definitions in use are 1. "...discrimination amongst people- that is, discrimination based on personal qualities." and 2. "Most broadly, Discrimination is to recognize qualities and differences of certain things or persons and making choices based on those qualities." The use of definition 1 would warrant the template as it currently reads; definition 2, which is far more broad would indeed include speciesism. However, why would or should it include speciesism without including price discrimination, discrimination testing, Markovian discrimination, discrimination abilities of pigeons, red-green hue discrimination, or a host of other topics that fit within the broader definition offered but miss the more narrow definition used here? --Littledrummrboy 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it would be silly to include the above topics, the RFC is ultimately about adding speciesism to Primary forms, which while speciesism is directly comparable in nature to any of the other primary forms, the discrimination abilities of pidgeons is not. Slavery (tick)-> Factory Farming (tick)-> Glass Ceiling (tick) -> Monet or Picasso Painting (BU-BONG sorry, you lose!). No painter has been denied the right to live based upon the decision of pidgeon, but black people have because of their skin colour, animals because of their species membership, Females because of a perceived lack of work capacity, the elderly because they're just too old, etc. While you yourself may not subscribe to the idea that non-human animals should have the same rights as human animals they are still being denied those rights (pidgeons included) based upon the subject at hand... discrimination. -- Librarianofages 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
So it seems that you agree the scope should be limited, you just prefer it be limited on your terms. Understood.
Again, my recommmendation on the debate of this matter, which seems to stem beyond just this article into the speciesist nature of Wikipedia as a whole, would be the WP on countering systemic bias. --Littledrummrboy —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The funny thing about your argument is that you are specifically arguing for speciesism to be made a special exception. In terms of discrimination it has been shown that not only does this form of discrimination exists it is also the most prevalent and socially acceptable form of it. Your attempt to suggest that by including speciesism, a form of discrimination that allows the oppression of one or more species of sentient being by another, it would open the door to the inclusion of other types of discrimination that do not involve this oppression. It's a ridiculous argument. Speciesism has much more in common with racism than it does with those forms such as price discrimination. A direct example is the European invasion and occupation of Australia. Aboriginal humans were regarded as animals and afforded the same rights as animals, namely none, and this lead to the extermination of many aboriginal people's and their countries. Similar justifications were used to justify the slavery and vivisection of Africans. Speciesism is intrinsically linked with many of the worst forms of discrimination and oppression of human animals across the globe. As I've pointed out already, the only justifications ofr not allowing it are those based in the mindset of speciesism itself. Are we to allow racists to remove "racism" from the template because they don't view other races as human? Prenna 01:34am 1 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.199.29 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just one link at the end of a template containing many. The subject matter linked is about discrimination between living things. Would including it (with, I guess, a comment not to remove) really open some kind of Pandora's Box? Sardanaphalus 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Consensus Ok, it looks as if all questions, criticisms and qualms have been addressed and conensus reached. I will be amending momentarily template momentarily to properly reflect outcome. -- Librarianofages 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus here. futurebird 03:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion had ceased for a number of days, perhaps you have something else to say? -- Librarianofages 04:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why this template is the wrong place for specieism

Well-intentioned comparisons between racism, sexism, etc. and animal abuse/cruelty/exploitation can end up doing more harm than good. I think that people need know how offensive these comparisons can be. Before you react, let me explain why. An animal might be offended by being compared to humans for all we know, but it's unlikely and in any case unimportant.

First, people, need not only the basic rights to live, and to not be treated with cruelty, but people also need other kinds of rights-- including the right to a form of respect that humans can only accord to each other. It is this form of respect that the various civil rights movements often seek. In fact, often, it is the whole point. And a lack of this form of respect is at the heart of discrimination. Lack of respect justifies segregation and unequal treatment.

Second, animals don't organize their own political movements. I guess that's a another thing that bothers me about the comparison. There is a difference between fighting for your own rights and 'supporting the fights of others. The animal rights movement is controlled by and organized by people. In that sense, it is paternalistic to animals-- but there is no other choice! Human rights movements are at their best when they aren't planned by outsiders. So, the comparison reminds me of the paternalistic and patronizing nature of some outside organizers who fight on the behalf of others and, in the process, still make the assumption that the people they are fighting for lack the agency to know what is best for them. This kind of control makes sense when helping animals, but it's insulting when applied to humans.

"Saves the whales" is a great bumper sticker "Save the blacks" ... um not so much.

Third, I don't think it's wrong to be offended about being compared to animals. (Of course, people are animals, but that is a another matter) --it is miscatgorization of human suffering that angers me. Human suffering may not be more important or better than other kinds of suffering, depending on who you ask, but it is human. It might not bother me as much if it didn't come out of a long history of just such comparisons. Blacks women and many other oppressed groups were compared to animals to show that they lacked agency and could not handle having freedom or rights. Even if it is not the intention including specieism on the template has the same flavor of such hateful comparisons. Not realizing that it could be offensive is ignorant. Knowing that it is offensive and doing it anyway is hateful and something I totally fail to understand. futurebird 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Give me a little while, i've been very busy at work. I will reply to you soon. -- Librarianofages 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
First up, you mention that there's some kind of "respect that humans can only accord to each other", without identifying what this respect is or why humans can only accord it to each other. You may be incapable of according respect to other animals but that is your flaw not a flaw of the speciesism concept. In fact your argument demonstrates again, the discriminatory nature of speciesism in that you can only see human animals being afforded this kind of respect.
Second, organisation. There are many indigenous peoples that have not organised their own political movement. Your argument here suggests that they would not be considered to be discriminated against unless they organise themselves against it. Indeed your argument even suggests that a group is not discriminated against until they organise against it.
Third, I'm to entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Initially it just seems to be that many forms of discrimination are within the realm of human-animal societies with some vague notion that this somehow makes it different. Then you mention the comparisons of various oppressed human animals historically being regarded as "just animals". Unfortunately here you fall into the same trap as the racists and sexists, you are using "they're just animals" to negate a form of discrimination. You also mention again that if could be offensive to some oppressed groups to include it. You fail to understand how offensive it is to those of us who identify as the animals that we are to have speciesism ignored by a supposedly impartial resource. You also fail to recognise the offense caused to members of traditionally accepted oppressed groups of human animals that fight against speciesism as they see it an integral part of their own struggle.
Once again the arguments you have presented have served no more purpose than to reiterate how ingrained speciesism is as a form of discrimination. -Prenna 23:53 11th November 2007
  • Then you mention the comparisons of various oppressed human animals historically being regarded as "just animals".
    No, that's not what I was getting it. I did not use the words "just animails" so I don't know why you have those words in quotes. It's not that they were being regarded as "just animals" but rather that they were being regarded as "not human" that is where the insult lies. It would be equally insulting to a dog, for example, to regard it as "not being dog" or to regard it as being a person rather than a dog.
  • You fail to understand how offensive it is to those of us who identify as the animals that we are to have speciesism ignored by a supposedly impartial resource.
    Speciesism causes humans who use the term "speciesism" to be offended, not the animals themselves. Is speciesism really discrimination against the people who think animals should be regard as humans? Is this about you or the animals? I'm confused.
  • You also fail to recognise the offense caused to members of traditionally accepted oppressed groups of human animals that fight against speciesism as they see it an integral part of their own struggle.
    I'm really interested in this do you have any sources?
  • There are many indigenous peoples that have not organised their own political movement.
    Give me an example. I'm serious. Give me one example.
  • Indeed your argument even suggests that a group is not discriminated against until they organise against it.
    Discrimination is not recognized until this happens. It's crucial. The only way for any group to regain their agency is for them to affirm it by expressing that agency through resistance to oppression. No one can do that for you.
  • First up, you mention that there's some kind of "respect that humans can only accord to each other", without identifying what this respect is or why humans can only accord it to each other.
    Here is an example: it's the respect to allow people to choose their own course in life when fighting oppression and then support that course rather than trying to direct things from above. It's the respect to trust people to know what is best for them and to not take important life decisions out of their hands out of a paternalistic desire to protect that person. With animals we make choices for them all the time for their protection. We put up fences and even neuter animals (such as city cats) to be "humane"-- we, stable horse rather than let them wander around freely because it would be more cruel not to do these things. We make decisions for the animals in a way that we simply would not do for a person. This is how you respect animals: you respect them as the animal that they are, respect dogs and dogs and blue jays and blue jays and people, regardless of their race or gender, as people. futurebird 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "It's not that they were being regarded as "just animals" but rather that they were being regarded as "not human" that is where the insult lies."
So then what has this got to do with your argument against Speciesism?
  • "Is speciesism really discrimination against the people who think animals should be regard as humans? Is this about you or the animals? I'm confused."
Humans are animals. Speciesism is offensive to many of us humans who regonise this FACT. Having Speciesism ignored is also offensive to us. Speciesism causes direct suffering to other animals. It's not an either/or thing.
  • "I'm really interested in this do you have any sources?" Talk to people of minority backgrounds that are involved in the animal rights movement.
  • "Give me an example. I'm serious. Give me one example." The !Kung.
  • "Discrimination is not recognized until this happens." I'm pretty sure the oppressed group or individual recognises their oppression before they organise. THat's generally what drives them to organise in the first place.
  • "With animals we make choices for them all the time for their protection." As we do for the mentally handicapped. Most of the protection we have to put in place for non-human animals is to protect them from the normalised state of a Speciesist society. True respect for animals is given when we allow them to conduct themselves in a way that is natural for them. Domestication, which is what you have described, is not respect. Real respect for animals is abandoning the dominionist perspective that we have any right to impose those fences that you say are for their "protection". -[User:Prenna|Prenna]] 05:38 21st November 2007
  • "It's not that they were being regarded as "just animals" but rather that they were being regarded as "not human" that is where the insult lies." So then what has this got to do with your argument against Speciesism? It implies that women, minorities etc. are not human.
  • I'm really interested in this do you have any sources? Check out the article on speciesism I've added them there.
  • As we do for the mentally handicapped. Disabled people including who have mental handicaps have been a key force in the fight against ableism.
  • The !Kung. Um... the !Kung people hunt and trap animals. Where did you get the idea that they were in to anti-speciesism�? Or are you using them as an example of people who did not playa role in their own liberation ? ? What? Can you explain that?
  • Most of the protection we have to put in place for non-human animals is to protect them from the normalised state of a Speciesist society. I agree with this but this template is still the wrong place for this concept. futurebird (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I came here from the RfC. I believe that "Discrimination" as used in the template refers to the (subjectively) unacceptable discrimination between humans based on certain identified traits. In that context, it is clear that discrimination between species should not be included. Personally, I would like to see most such templates go away completely, as they seem to be used to push POVs (both by inclusion and exclusion) more than as a resource. Blackworm 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Equal Opportunity Employment

I think the article Equal Opportunity Employment should be added to the template. --Jagz 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Legend

I'm removing Black Legend from the template. It's far, far too specific a topic (by referring only to anti-Spanish bias) to be in the box.--ProfessorFokker 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I'll just move it to the "against cultures" section as a link to Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorFokker (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither are appropriate. Black Legend is a specific manifestation of anti-Spanish sentiment. But it does not comprise the totality of such sentiment, so it doesn't belong as the nominal "anti-spanish-ism" link. Specific manifestations of discrimination / prejudice (e.g. Holocaust, Apartheid) should be applicable for the template. - Keith D. Tyler 05:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, where did Holocaust go? Didn't it used to be there? It's fair to say that group-specific manifestations like Black Legend look out of place with all the less-specific manifestations of discrimination. I was sure Holocaust was in the template though. - Keith D. Tyler 05:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[3] Sardanaphalus 10:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image, because the image added doesn't really represent discrimination. It is just the "anti" image. Yahel Guhan 04:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I thought it was a bit strange too. futurebird 12:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree this image represeints discrimination, in many articles, it seems strange to have it at that location, and i the template may need to be lowered in some articles. Yahel Guhan 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule that says that we MUST have an image? I think this image puts too much focus on black/white issues in the US, I mean that's a huge topic, but it's not the only topic. I thought it was OK without the image. futurebird 20:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe it should be removed.Yahel Guhan 20:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Racial segregation

This template is messing up the flow of this article, and I don't know how to fix it. Could someone have a look? futurebird 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the easy fix is removial. Maybe use the navbox instead. Yahel Guhan 20:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks! It looks a lot better with the footer. I forgot that thing was there. futurebird 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


"General" & "Social"

I was just surprised that Homophobia wasn't in the "General" section at the top, but in the "social" one. I would argue that Homophobia is a "General" form, and more over, the "social" grouping is a bit of a mess. By extrapolating from the other categories, it would mean "discrimination against social aspects", ie Snobbism, Elitism, or Discrimination against the poor in Elections. Ability, Sexuality (& for some people Gender) are not social constructs, and so shouldn't be there. Ironically, in this way, especially when it comes to Sexuality, this is the kind of argument often used in a homophobic context (ie that it is a social construct, not something naturally within people). Shouldn't Social be split or renamed? Hrcolyer 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. how would you change it? futurebird 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, on the one hand I would suggest that "Social" be split into Gender (Transphobia, Misogyny, Misandry), Age (Adultism, Ephebiphobia, Gerontophobia, Pediaphobia, Ageism), Sexuality (Homophobia, Biphobia, Lesbophobia, Heterosexism), Physical (Lookism, Sizeism, Heightism, Ableism), Social (Classism, Elitism), but then it would be quite long, although it might make it easier to notice missing ones (especially in the "Social" category for example). And I'm still not sure what defines the "General" category. Could it be presented as "you can discriminate on the basis of [race|racism], [sex|sexism], [gender|?], [sexual orientation|?], [ability|?], [religion|religious intolerance], [age|?], physical aspects, nationality/origin, social aspects or something along those lines? I can see problems with the current system, but I can't necessarily see something better... Hrcolyer 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. Homophobia is discrimination towards a specific sexual orientation, so it is not a general form. A general form would be perhaps sexualitism if such a term was in wide use. In other words, a term that was a catch-all for forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation would be a general form. For example, Racism is a general form because it can mean anti-black, anti-white, anti-Malay, etc. Sexism, likewise, includes both anti-male and anti-female. A corresponding general form would include homophobia, heterophobia, heterosexism, transphobia within its scope. There really is to date no commonly-used or accepted term for this category (that does not also encompass sexism, which is IMO distinct). I think you see where this is coming from. - Keith D. Tyler 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
So that would be "Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, no? A bit heavy, but you make a valid point. However the sidebar seems to have vanished, so a bit redundant.Hrcolyer (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Against cultures

Anti-Zionism is opposition to a particular political ideology. It is not discrimination against Israeli culture. Similarly Anti-communism is not discrimination against any particular culture or ethnicity.Bless sins (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also opposition to the existance of Israel, and has been considered a form of antisemitism; both of which make it relevant to discrimination. Anti-communism can be removed. Yahel Guhan 22:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Zionism is a political movement rather than an ethnicity, culture, religion, or other trait, I agree with Bless_sins that anti-Zionism does not fall under "discrimination" as used here. Indeed some Jews are anti-Zionist. I reiterate my opinion that templates of this sort serve little purpose other than to non-neutrally label concepts positively or negatively, by inclusion or exclusion. Blackworm (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is, however a very huge connection to discrimination with anti-zionism, and the concept has often been labeled a form of antisemitism. The Jewish exodus from Arab lands, for example shows that anti-zionism has at times caused discrimination, so there is a connection, which i think warrents its inclusion. Yahel Guhan 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You will need to do better than that. You must provide reliable sources saying that "anti-Zionism" includes discriminating against Israeli culture. Anti-Zionism isn't discrimination against Israelis any more than communism is discrimination against Chinese.Bless sins (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, your Jewish exodus from Arab lands doesn't hold. Even if we assume that Jews were forced out of their homes (which is largely not true), they were not Israelis at the time of departure. Infact the Jews who left Arab countries were anything but Israelis. They were Egyptians, Yemenis, Iraqis, Libyans etc.Bless sins (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that anti-Zionism isn't a form of discrimination. However I disagree with "anti-communism" as an analogy. If it is opposed to communist princple, then it is ideological; however if it is opposed to communists, then it is discriminatory. Cf. Joseph McCarthy. I'm also going to restate my past assertion that labeling a notion such as Racism or Antisemitism as being a form of discrimination is a purely objective exercise. This notion that the template grouping is non-neutral is unfounded. It presumes that the "discrimination" is inherently a negative characterization. But there is no purely objective or neutral reason to make that value judgment, despite what we may feel or associate with the term in the subjective real world. - Keith D. Tyler 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's true. Also we must remember that not many Zionists are not Israeli, and many Israelis are not Zionists.Bless sins (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)
It looks like this is being resolved correctly, but I'd like to point out that if anti-Zionism is going to be classed as discriminatory because there are disputed allegations about it, the exact same principle would apply to Zionism: see Zionism and racism allegations. <eleland/talkedits> 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Anti-zionism is a counterideology, not a form of discrimination. If there is an Anti-Israeli article or some such, that would be appropriate. But 99% of the time people would use (correctly or not) Antisemitism for that sentiment. - Keith D. Tyler 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative Action in the United States

When I looked I missed the existance of the 'Counter-Discrimination' section that Affirmative action is located in and added AA in the US to the 'anti-discrimination' section. Is "AA in the US" an appropriate article to add to this series template or is it too specific, and should it be moved to the 'counter discrimination' section? (And whatever decision is made, the Footer Version of the template may need to be updated to reflect any changes as well)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Too specific. The number of potential links would explode if we included [Manifestation] in [Country] articles. For example, consider LGBT rights in Zimbabwe. I think the problem becomes rapidly apparent. Now... if you were to have a more specific AA template, that would be more appropriate (though with the DISC template already on such an article, ppl may start to get cranky about template glut). It'd be nice if it was possible to highlight the most relevant link in the DSC template instead of it only being the currently viewed page. Maybe someone knows how to do this? - Keith D. Tyler 17:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible version

I think we should work on creating a collapsable version of this template for the smaller articles (entitled Template:Discrimination (collapsible). Yahel Guhan 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what the footer version (which is collapsible) was intended for. - Keith D. Tyler 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This pink/purple thing is very ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prufrock, J. Alfred (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cultures and beliefs

Are "cultures" synonymous with "beliefs"? Sometimes they are. For example, Jews, who are a religious group, are largely the same ethnic group as well. Also Muslims, are often identified by their clothing (for women its the headscarf, for men its the beard/turban), eating habits (e.g. prohibition of alcohol and pork), language (virtually all Muslims say their prayers in Arabic, and this language they recite the Qur'an in as well).

Thus the question is should be list such discrimination as once (only in the beliefs section) or twice?Bless sins (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Use on Israel and the apartheid analogy

Hi. This template has been in use on Israel and the apartheid analogy for some time. Recently the appropriateness of its presence there has been challenged. The article discusses the comparison sometimes made between treatment of Palestinians (and to a lesser extent the treatment of Arab citizens of Israeli) by the State of Israel and the treatment of non-whites during South Africa's apartheid era. The comparison is contentious, with academic and political opinions for and against. Those against the analogy claim that it is it is security considerations, not prejudice, that drives the State of Israel's actions. Having the discrimination template on this page could be seen as providing useful context. On the other hand, it could be seen as implying that the Israeli apartheid analogy is valid. What do you think, should it be present? Please try to leave aside any personal opinions on the validity of the apartheid analogy and consider this in the general form: should an article about a subject in which the element of discrimination is contentious use the discrimination template? I'm looking for an outside view here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "challenged" so much as "blindly reverted a few times", to be blunt, as I do not believe that either of the deleters chose to start a discussion on the talk page before snipping it out. Just because it underwent a name change does not mean that the article itself has changed its focus, intent, or meaning. It is still about the controversy over apartheid-like conditions in the OT and elsewhere, so the navbox is very much appropriate to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's contentious, it shouldn't take a template. That implies WP endorses the idea. The box works well for Israel haters, but doesn't do much else here. IronDuke 03:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It implies nothing of the sort, any more than the article's existence implies endorsement of the apartheid analogy itself. That was the typical argument tactic of the pro-deletionists through some 6-8 or so AfDs; it didn't work then, and it isn't going to work now. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
6-8 deletions? Are you inclufding the ones started by strawman sockpuppets to permanently corrupt the process on this article? Because lasttime I checked, in the last full accouting, Wikiepdia consensus did not favor this article even existing, let alone as a platform for the Is-real is the evillest country evar crowd to run wild. IronDuke 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
People, please. I've brought this here for an outside view. All you've done is repeated the arguments for and against that I've already made in the request for feedback. Can we please stifle the usual tit-for-tat for a moment and get some feedback from people who work on the template as to whether they think the usage is appropriate? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be acceptable for both parties. Those who think the analogy works would accept it because they think of apartheid as a form of discrimination and those who are against the analogy would accept it as they think it's a form of antisemitism to criticise Israel. // Liftarn (talk)

So very, very wrong,. But you knew that before you posted, right? I disagree with Ryan on much, but he is right that we should let uninvolved editors comment. IronDuke 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with IronDuke. It's a big stretch to suggest that those opposed to the analogy both 1) would think that use of the analogy is anti-semitic, especially when a number of the academics, journalists, and politicians who use it are Jewish, and 2) would believe that a general reader would infer that the discrimination sidebar is there to give context to anti-semitism. No cookie. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good place to discuss this as it is an article content issue. And the tpl does not link back to the article. It seems to me that the problem people have is not with the use of this template anyway but with the article itself. That being said, when your opening sentence is based on weasel words, you're in trouble. - Keith D. Tyler 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed both on the article and here. I asked for feedback here because I wanted a wider-context view, rather than just the people edit warring over it. As for weasel words, read WP:WEASEL more closely. The word "some" is appropriate when referring to a wide range of people who are not easily described by another term, so long as they are attributed at some point. The article is chock-full of such attributions. In any case, that really is an article content discussion and this really isn't the place. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) for it

Generalization of heterophobia and homophobia

User:CJ_Withers wanted to move Heterophobia out of General Forms and into Specific Groups, because "Heterophobia is not generalized". Well, he's right. But likewise, Homophobia is not generalized, either. The problem is -- and I've brought this up before -- that there is no widely accepted general term under which these would fit. "Sexualism" has been proposed, for example, but not gained acceptance; perhaps because homophobia and heterophobia as well as lesbiphobia and transphobia are not yet recognized by the wider interest community as being forms of a single broader category of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

With all that in mind... I would argue that homophobia (and heterophobia) are sufficiently somewhat general (for example, they can refer to either males or females); but more importantly, and I realize that this has consistency issues, but homophobia is also a significant form of discrimination and really should be near the top of the table.

BTW, I don't think OR arguments are relevant to matters of, say, the ordering of template items. OR is being widely overused. It should be applied to article content only; it does the project no good to be continually mired in meta-meta-meta-defenses of structural peculiarities. Article content is WP's real product, everything else is administrivia.

- Keith D. Tyler 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial Profiling?

Racial profiling is not a manifestation of discrimination, it's a logical and reasonable method of threat assessment, and doesn't belong on this template or in this category. — DeFender1031 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? It is a fact. A middle eastern man in his 20s or 30s is more likely to hijack a plane than an 80 year old grandmother from palm beach with her grandchildren. — DeFender1031 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me just say that the point of this was not to get into a POV debate, it was to point out that putting it under "manifestations" is basically taking a side in the debate, whereas moving to "related topics" would be a more neutral sort of a thing. — DeFender1031 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably in the wrong section. I'll move it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Just a note, after moving it, the manifestations section is a bit ugly, and it could use sorting (from what i understand from the invisicomment, somehow pie made it not be sorted?) I'd do it myself but i'm not so good with layouts. — DeFender1031 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's better now. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I've said to plenty of other people, you need to actually go and look up the word "discriminate" in the dictionary. Making decisions -- any decisions -- based on race, is discriminating by race. Whether it is "legitimate" or "good" is the only POV aspect of the topic. I've consistently pushed for these value judgements of "good" vs. "bad" discrimination to be kept out of decisions on this template. DeFender103 is objecting to the placement of racial profiling under "manifestations of discrimination". Well, if racial discrimination is the making of decisions based on race, then racial profiling, which makes "threat assessment" decisions based on race, is a manifestation of it. Saying "it's legitimate" is not a refutation of this.

Reverting. - Keith D. Tyler 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


"Gendism"

This term appears to be a neologism and is currently a redirect to sexism. There are no significant uses brought up by Google. Is there any reason that this deserves feature on a widely reproduced template that is already too long? --Gimme danger (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to horizontal navbox?

There already is a horizontal version. See {{Discrimination}}. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry I didn't know about, but should we still consider the issues of repetition across those many templates. Or take it to a documentations talk?

I mean this template would be good for related articles, as collapsible, similar to Template:Sex in SF (e.g. speculative fiction, new theory articles). Should we add a documentation usage and leave it? --75.154.186.99 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Rainbowofpeace, 16 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I believe that the General part of the list should include Racism Sexism Ageism Ableism Classism Genism Heightism Lookism Mentalism Sexualism Linguicism Speciesism and Sizeism. The reason is because that these are the general forms of discrimination and not againist a specific group. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of these are listed under Specific forms... The template is long enough as it is, really doesn't need stuff moved to extend it. Also, aren't all forms of discrimination against a specific group? Avicennasis @ 03:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Sexualism is discrimination based on sexual orientation which could include any sexual orientation. Homophobia is specifically againist homosexuals therefore being a specific form while Sexualism is the general form. Similarly Sexism is discrimination based on sex or gender. Misogyny is specifically againist women. Sexism is the general form while misogyny is the specific form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Darkwind (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Arbirx, 28 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please review the article about Genocide and change "Christian population" to Armenian population, specifically. Under "Coining of the term genocide", where it states: "...The concept originated in his youth when he first heard of the Ottoman government's mass killings of its Christian population during the First World War." I would like you to review and specify that the "Christian population" in Ottoman government were Armenians. You can watch this video on Youtube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCebMq-GmH4) where Dr. Raphael Lamkin himself states that he created the word genocide because of the Armenian killings by the Ottoman government. thank you Arbirx (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll move this request over to Talk:Genocide  Chzz  ►  17:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic

The box lists Americans, Canadians, and Chileans as ethnic groups. They are not ethnic groups. Sbrianhicks (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AIDS

Someone needs to create an article addressing stigma againist people with HIV/AIDS.-Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Heterosexism

This is more suitable for general forms instead of specific forms...

In order to be a general form it must be againist people of all sexual orientations. For example Sexism could be againist Men or Women makeing it a General Form. However Misogyny is only againist Women. Sexualism is the General Form because people of all sexual orientations can claim it. Heterosexism can only be claimed by Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Asexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.251.142 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that was me who wrote the response comment. Anyway as I was saying in order to be a general form it must have the potential to be used againist all groups even in some cases the groups in power. Ex. Racism againist Whites, Sexism againist Men, Sexualism againist Heterosexuals. Therefore having the potential to effect the general community. Specific Forms effect specific communities and are usually sub-branches of General Forms Ex. Antisemitism is a form of Racism and Fatism is a form of Sizeism. If this does not make sense I would be happy to explain more but please don't change it again without talking to me. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexualism is the General Form. Heterosexism along with Biphobia, Heteronormativity, Heterophobia, Homophobia, and Lesbophobia are all forms of Sexualism not the other way around. This is why SEXUALISM is the General Form and NOT Heterosexism. Please do not change it again without discussion-Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 07:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexualism article does not have many sources. It seems like a made up term. Phoenix of9 15:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Btw, there are also many other articles which lack sources. The sidebar needs clean up. You seem to be dumping everything into it. Phoenix of9 15:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if Sexualism is a made up term which I know for a fact it isnt. Heterosexism is not a general form as it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation but discrimination againist people who are not straight. Just get a dictionary. This alone makes it a specific form. Why? Because it is a bias againist SPECIFIC groups. Specific means one or more in particular and not all. General means it could apply to anyone. If a gay, bi, or asexual person goes on a rant about straight people the straight person cant say "You are being very Heterosexist." Ableism, Ageism, Classism, Genism, Heightism, Linguicism, Lookism, Mentalism, Racism, Rankism, Religious Discrimination, Sexism, Sexualism, Sizeism, Speciesism, Weightism and Xenophobia can apply to anybody making it a GENERAL term. Heterosexism is not a GENERAL term. In other words technically I can be racist againist white people, sexist againist men etc. but I cannot be Heterosexist towards Heterosexuals.-Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.251.142 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you have not given me one reason why to keep Heterosexism in the General Forms. So state your reasons. -Rainbowofpeace

First of all, "homosexism" is nowhere nearly entrenched as "heterosexism". Second of all, what you think is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And there isn't even a word "sexualism", ie: there are no sources for it.
Oxford dictionary "No exact results found for "sexualism" in the dictionary." [4]
There is one for heterosexism [5]
No results for sexualism in merriam too [6]. But there is heterosexism [7].
And finally heterosexism is the main for of discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Phoenix of9 18:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a GENERAL form of discrimination is one that is againist an Identity group like Race, Gender, Age, or Sexual Orientation. A SPECIFIC form is againist SPECIFIC groups. In others words a GENERAL form is like Racism, Racism can apply to attacks againist all racial groups. One could be Racist againist Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Arabs etc. Meaning ANY attack againist someone based on Race is Racism. A SPECIFIC form of Discrimination would be Heterosexism why because it is prejudice aginist people who are not straight not prejudice based on sexual orientation. Notice how although it is much less common throughout history you could apply all GENERAL forms to every group. Raceism is based on Race not just prejudice againist blacks, Sexism is based on Sex and Gender not just agianist women, Ageism is based on Age not just againist the Elderly. Even if your point that Sexualism is not a word is true. That does not mean Heterosexism is a general form. It means there is no term for the general form of discrimination againist people based on sexual orientation however there are many specific forms. Do not change it again unless you can show me an occasion where a straight person has called someone heterosexist for attacking the Heterosexual Sexual Orienation. If you want I will gladly take down Sexualism but Heterosexism WILL NOT replace it as it IS NOT a general form.-Rainbowofpeace

I have removed Sexualism for lack of sources. Heterosexism has been moved because as read above it is not a GENERAL form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 23:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

http://sexualism.tribe.net/ http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/sexualism.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sexualism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Heterosexism is not specifically against one group. It is not necessarily against gays. It could be against bixesuals. It could be against heterosexuals perceived to be gay. It could be against heterosexuals (eg: close male friendships may be frowned upon). Therefore it is a general form. Phoenix of9 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh and some gays could prescribe to some heterosexist ideas as well.Phoenix of9 23:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


It dosn't have to be againist one group to be a specific form but it must be againist all groups to be a general form. Close male friendship are frowned upon because it is percieved to be GAY. Therefore it is not againist Heterosexuals for being Heterosexual but againist percieved homosexuals who are percieved to be gay even thought they are not. -Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said heterosexism could be against all groups, including heterosexuals. Phoenix of9 23:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your later addition, you are right (Im assuming you meant "Therefore it is not againist Heterosexuals for being Heterosexual but againist percieved heteroexuals who are percieved to be gay even thought they are not"). This is why you can not expect the same generality criteria with racism and sexism when it comes to heterosexism since a white person would not perceived to be black or a woman would not perceived to be a man usually. Phoenix of9 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

If a straight person was not allowed to enter a gay club would that be Heterosexism?-Rainbowofpeace

And that is comparable to prosecution in some countries like Uganda and Iran, for example? Almost all discrimination due to sexual orientation is heterosexism. Phoenix of9 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You have proven to me that Sexualism is not a real word that accepted most of the time however, Heterosexism is still againist specific groups and can not apply to all forms of discrimination based on Sexual Orientation this makes it a specific form period. So here is my proposal Sexualism will no longer be on the list or at least not until I learn to source however Heterosexism will remain in specific forms until you can show me how Heterosexism can apply to Heterosexuals who are discriminated aginist for being Heterosexuals (not for being percieved to be homosexual bisexual or asexual).-Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you not read? "Almost all discrimination due to sexual orientation is heterosexism"? Phoenix of9 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In order to be General it must be all not almost all. That is what General means.-Rainbowofpeace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Source? Phoenix of9 00:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not stating that prejudice againist LGBT people is less prevelant than that againist straight. But every general form of discrimination must apply to everyone I will show you. Ableism is based on physical ability of the body not discrimination againist the disabled only. Ageism is based on age not againist the elderly only. Classism is based on socioeconomic class not againist the poor only. Heightism is based on height not againist the short only. Linguicism is based on language not againist the non-english only. Lookism is based on appearance not againist the ugly only. Mentalism is based on intelligence mental type or neurology not againist the retard, mentally disabled or autistic only. Racism is based on race ethnicity and nationality not just againist non-whites only. Sexism is based on sex or gender not just againist female or transgendered only. Weightism is based on weight not just againist fat people only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/General Definition number one http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Specific Definition number two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace has made a better argument than pheonix. He has stated what general means and sourced it plus stated why heterosexism does not fit. He also sourced why sexualism is and also showed sources of instances where sexualism is used. I think sexualism should be restored and heterosexism should stay in the specific forms because it is againist specific groups.Dragonsread (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Dragonsread

It is clearly a specific form. It only applys towards specific groups making it a specific form by definition. In order to be General it must be againist the General community. It must have the potential to be used againist the general community. This does not however mean that LGBT people and their discrimination is equal to the discrimination againist straight people but it simply means that Heterosexism is not generalized there really is no term to refer to a General form of discrimination but Sexualism was the closet.Djtimekeeper (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Housing discrimination (United States)

The new article Housing discrimination (United States) probably needs to be added to this template. It's not clear to me where it fits, though. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This would be able to be added if (and only if) It reflected a universal form of discrimination. That article is by definition (its title) americentric. I think we have houseing discrimination as a whole in an article on here already-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits (Dec 2010)

There have been a lot of edits to this template in the past few days... I'm not sure if some of the things added belong? RainbowofPeace and I undid some but they got re-added. I left a message on Mike D 26's talk page about editing so much. I'm kind of at a loss here. For clarity's sake, here are some things that were added that I'm uncertain about:

Just to avoid an edit war. This is such a highly visible template and it's confusing for it to change like every day. Noted 7 (t · c) 16:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

New Possible Forms of Discrimination

Ok, I don't know what people will do with this information. I am hoping it will be used for people to create articles about certain forms and delete some about others. I typed into google different general forms of discrimination to see where they fit in commonality of use. Note, for Mentalism I typed in Mentalism Discrimination to prevent it from confusing it with the performing art. These were my results Racism 21,200,000
Sexism 2,820,000
Ageism 452,000
Classism 240,000
Speciesism 93,000
Mentalism 79,400
Colorism 58,400
Lookism 48,400
Hairism 37,400
Religionism 25,400
Ethnicism 20,900
Sexualism 19,900
Nameism 16,600
Genism 15,500
Sizeism 13,800
Genderism 13,300
Linguicism 12,200
Handism 11,900
Rankism 11,200
Weightism 7,750
Eyeism 1,930
I hope this will encourage people to make some new discrimination articles and possibly delete some others. The new ones without articles that should be looked at are Hairism, Ethnicism, Nameism, Genderism, Handism, and Eyeism -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This list and the process that you're going through worry me. Surely you're doing more than just Googling for words with -ism on the end. Did you wonder if "classism" and "agesism" would be much less common terms than "class discrimination" and "age discrimination"? There are, for example, one point two million Google returns for "age discrimination", in quotes. Did that cross your mind? If you're trying to make a template specifically about words that end with -ism, this is a good start; if you're making a template about discrimination I'm not confident in your competence to do so. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk)
For that matter, what's this "please don't change it again without talking to me" nonsense above? You've been here six months and you're anonymous; you aren't in charge of anything. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
That was an attempt to prevent an edit war which happened anyway. And by the way I see you have done very little on the discrimination page and ism is not synonymous with discrimination. Judaism is not discrimination and neither is mechanism. Why would I want to say racial discrimination when I have the actual term. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Racial Discrimination 8,690,000
Ancestry Discrimination 2,610,000
Religious Discrimination 1,980,000
Age Discrimination 1,650,000
Sex Discrimination 1,410,000
Gender Discrimination 783,000
Disability Discrimination 737,000
Ethnic Discrimination 576,000
Race Discrimination 480,000
Color Discrimination 404,000
National Origin Discrimination 330,000
Genetic Discrimination 276,000
Size Discrimination 249,000
Class Discrimination 201,000
Gender Identity Discrimination 162,000
Language Discrimination 95,100
Sexual Orientation Discrimiantion 79,900
Religion Discrimination 73,500
Skin Color Discrimination 62,800
Handicap Discrimination 57,500
Colour Discrimination 49,700
Linguistic Discrimination 44,900
Species Discrimination 42,000
National Discrimination 31,200
Weight Discrimination 30,200
Sexual Preference Discrimiantion 23,300
Nationality Discrimination 23,200
Ethnicity Discrimination 19,800
Name Discrimination 18,700
Rank Discrimination 17,400
Hair Color Discrimination 16,700
Height Discrimination 16,100
Eye Color Discrimination 13,700
Mental Discrimination 11,300
Appearance Discrimination 8,800
Sexualality Discrimination 5,500
Hair Discrimination 6,370
Intelligence Discrimination 4,850
Genotype Discrimination 4,290
Hair Colour Discrimiantion 2,720
Eye Discrimination 1,820
Hairstyle Discrimination 166
Neurological Discrimination 143
There are you happy Ashley, next time you want to complain about something I do. Do it yourself. As for everyone else. Please, consider adding some new forms of General Discrimination. Thank you!.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gonzo template: Possible to use a little discretion?

The template is now joke size, with every possible "ism" added, and now you're just making new "isms" up.

Can the huge brains who love dropping an ever expanding list of items into the sidebar not realise that a few concepts can act as umbrella headings? Meaning that exhaustive listing need not occur?

Or, that the template be split into subject specific templates? Bucoli (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the sensible reductions. Bucoli (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reform considerations please

Hi, just looking over the sidebar I can see quite a bit of overlap and redundancy in the topics covered. Some of these pages could be merged/redirected to each other.

For one example:

These 3 pages are essentially about the very same topic. Yet, there exist three different pages.

One of them, the 'sizism' page, is only one third (textwise) of the length of the massive discrimination sidebar running from the top to the bottom of it!

And no, any claimed subtle differences between them is no reason why these concepts couldn't be covered and mentioned on a single page. The various titles can all be mentioned in the opening paragraphs, as happens on other pages if that is important.

Eg "xxxxx, sometimes referred to as sizeism, or weightism, is the discrimina...."

An alternative model:

A perhaps simpler alternative idea to this combination model, using the same 3, is where you pick 1 of the pages to go on the template, as the representative of the 3 pages. This page would also link to the others. The template is streamlined.

That is a possibility for streamlining the templates without waiting for the lengthier merge process to complete, but we should still merge if possible. --Mirokado (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, have a think about ideas for putting the template on a diet! :) Bucoli (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the sidebar and navbox so far. I entirely support mergers of the kind you mention above. I think we should chose the most neutral term among well-referenced notable alternatives for the merged article (see the related suggestion by Jaque Hammer in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ableism_(2nd_nomination). --Mirokado (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right about the problems caused by the large sidebar. For any article shorter than the sidebar, the navbox should be used instead. Other circumstances in which the navbox is more appropriate are: more than one navigation aid in the article (such as Ableism), content such as pictures pushed away from the section in which they are embedded, section bunching. --Mirokado (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sizeism is discrimination againist people based on weight AND height. Weightism is strictly againist weight. Sizeism is related to both Heightism and Weightism in the same way Colorism is related Racism. Anti-Fat bias is specifically againist fat people whereas Sizeism and Weightism include thin people deleteing that would be like deleting antisemitism because there is already racism, deleteing misogyny and misandry because their is already sexism, deleting pedophobia ephibiphobia and gerontophobia because there is already ageism, homophobia heterophobia heterosexism homonegativity etc because there is already sexualism, misanthropy because there is already speciesism etc. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow of peace, have you considered that your reasoning might be the reason why the discrimination sidebar grew too large? This is the sort of thinking you bring to the table: "Please create Handism". Bucoli (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Rainbow of peace, as evidence, I am citing an example of your reasoning ability to show others your level of thinking. This is you writing as to why yet another "ism" ("handism") should be generated out of thin air. "I know there is discrimination againist ambihandedness....I would like to see something about discrimination againist those who are ambihanded as I am.". If you can use both hands equally, how can you be 'discriminated' against? Please stop adding stuff to the discrimination template. You do not demonstrate good judgement, or common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucoli (talk • contribs) 09:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's alot like saying if your bisexual how can you be discriminated againist. Might I remind that wikipedia is meant to be a general encyclopedia that includes as much non-repetitive notable information as possible. If you want to attack the concept of Handism go ahead. This bar is about teaching what different forms of discrimination there are not about saying lets limit it to a few select things. The fact of the matter is if Noted Seven or anyone for that matter could use sources to back up there information it should be a part of wikipedia. Now its one thing to attack me but leave Noted Seven out of this. And by the way, I truely do wish to thank you for collapsing the template. Try and think about what wikipedia is about. I'm not sure whether or not you actually looked at the Handism sandbox but it was actually very insightful and brought up alot I never thought about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but use common sense, by having topics within topics. The encyclopedia can cover as many things as possible, but it also has to be practical. It should be easy to use and look at for the human eye and brain. People will find these things. Just don't visually throw all these topics at people at once, by putting an exhaustive list on the template. Thank you for the collapsing the template comment - the template inner workings are quite user-unfriendly, so it wasn't easy for me to figure out! :) Bucoli (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar with collapsible lists (simpler)

Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
General
Specific forms
Social
Manifestations
Policies
Other forms
Related topics
{{Portal-inline|Discrimination}}

This new layout using {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}} suggested by 213.246.86.16 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks better and the code size is smaller, although the title font is rather untidy on my system. --Mirokado (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
General
Specific forms
Social
Manifestations
Policies
Other forms
Related topics
{{Portal-inline|Discrimination}}

Updated with the latest contents and using {{nowrap begin}}, {{•w}}, {{nowrap end}}. Easier to maintain the lists using nowrap etc than either distributing br tags or using numbered list elements --Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would love for your suggestions to be put into practice and have fought for most of them with the obvious exception of heterosexism being a general form. Many people do feel that this template is too big. I will go on a step by step of why each was removed.
1. Ableism and Heterosexism in the general section-General means all check out dictionary.com definition 1 it could mean dictionary definition 2 but that would increase the size of the general forms section. When I think of general form I think discrimination based on race, gender, age etc. as opposed to discrimination againist blacks, women, and the elderly. Ableism only applies to discrimination againist those with physical disabilities and I am not sure whether or not it could be used to refer to attacks on the able-bodied and I am positive that Heterosexism can not be used to refer to attacks on Heterosexuals. All in all however I feel Ableism should be put back in the general section as there is no general form againist physical disability as of now. Heterosexism is a form of Sexualism which is already covered.
2. Academic Elitism is discrimination againist those with lower grades and those without scholarships. I feel this needs to stay.
3. Thank you so much, Anti-Masonry should be put back in. I'm not sure if others will agree but both Anti-Masonry and Anti-Communism should be put in there because although not always discrimination can result in such looking at the amount of freemasons killed by the nazis and the concept of the Red Scare you can clearly see they have been attacked in the same way other minorities have. Also people confuse communism with dictatorship therefore falsely labeling communism while real communists believe in a government ruled by the people for the people with egalitarian standards.
4. Compulsory Sterilization was removed because it isn't necessarily discrimination.
5. Group Libel should be included under its regular term defemation.
6. Hate Mail should be added.
7. Victimization is not necessarily discrimination. It can be but isn't necessarily. You can be victimized from a random non-targeted car crash as much as a targeted hate crime.
8. I agree with bringing back slavery I shaved it because of complaints by the other editors to make the template smaller because anyone can be a slave just by being taken not necessarily because of their group identity. Put it back in though.
8. I'm all for adding Ethnocentrism back if other centrism articles can be reinstated specifically Adultcentrism, Afrocentrism, Americentrism (which should be merged into American Exceptionalism), Androcentrism, Eurocentrism, Gynocentrism, Sinocentrism, Xenocentrism (and possibly although I'm not sure Chronocentrism, I have to think about that one). Also White and Black Supremacy should be put back.
9. Why don't you have Racial integration as Racial Integration, Social Integration for all minorities (not just racial but religious, sexual etc.) as Integration.
10. Is police brutality necessarily discrimination. Police can be brutal to stop a riot or because they feel threatend not just because of the other person identity or group.
11. Xenophobia should be moved back up into the General forms.
-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Arr. I see the navbox and sidebar are more different in some sections than I had realised. I had intended to reproduce the current sidebar contents, but was really concentrating on the formatting issue of whether the •w template would work nicely with the narrow box and starting with the navbox lists seemed easier. I think •w works OK and will be more maintainable. I will post another update "soon". --Mirokado (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of a series of articles on
Discrimination
General forms
General
Specific forms
Social
Manifestations
Policies
Other forms
Related topics
{{Portal-inline|Discrimination}}

Updated again, this time with identical topic lists for the current sidebar and this one. Let's stick to discussing this new box source method here, but we can certainly discuss the current contents in another section (and will probably have to :) --Mirokado (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking latest changes to the real template while we are considering this alternative (I will mostly just up this or whichever signature when doing that in future, see also the edit summaries.) --Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Age policy links, criteria for including links

I have started looking through the links in this sidebar and as far as I can see quite a few point to articles which do not even mention discrimination. Far from educating readers, it will just confuse them or waste their time to encourage them to follow links to unrelated articles.

The links in this sidebar should have a relevance to discrimination which is clearly demonstrated by the content of the linked articles, supported by good inline references (since it is impracticable to add references to the sidebar itself). If that is not the case I will probably remove them with an explanatory edit comment. If anyone feels that an issue is of such significance that it should appear in this template, the first thing to do is to find the relevant article and make sure that the article supports that significance, updating it if necessary.

I will read through the linked articles before taking any action, so I won't be carpet bombing the template. Links can be restored if that seems appropriate once the articles concerned have been expanded.

The first few links which have caught my attention are those related to age limit legislation. With the possible exception of Age of candidacy, which I will leave in for now, they have nothing to do with discrimination, the laws being framed to protect vulnerable groups of people (or in some cases everyone else). There is clearly political debate about where to draw the line for each issue, but nobody in their right mind is going to suggest that preventing seven year olds from buying and drinking as much alcohol as they like (for example) is an act of discrimination.

We should also be looking for suitable top-level articles which can replace other closely-related more detailed links. Perhaps some such articles need to be created or updated for completeness. It looks as if Ageism does not mention the discrimination against political candidates mentioned in Age of candidacy, for example. --Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to automatically assume that the age articles apply to all ages. This is not true. This however is why these policies are discriminative, let's say for example we have a 16 year old and a 87 year old. The 16 year old is in this scenario very intelligent and has a good head on their shoulders. They could really make a difference for their country but they are restricted because of their age. On the other hand the 87 year old has no (I repeat no) source of memory anymore. This person can't remember anything and yet they can vote. Does this make any sense? No, not really. And as for your comment on 7 year olds and alchohol you are correct but in some countries (like say Canada) people can drink at 18. Also just because it isn't in your mind equal with other forms does not mean its not discrimination. On average women are weaker physically then men. Should we now make it so that women can't do any physical because they are a "vulnerable group". Adjusting say Legal Drinking Age does not mean making it 0. It means lowering it. Why in the United States can I go out and dye for my country, be tried as an adult, and be held responsible for my own actions but I can't enter a bar? Even if it is a rediculous form of discrimination which (in your opinion) should be allowed, does not mean it is not discrimination specifically in the different forms of ageism especially, pedophobia and ephebiphobia. -76.121.251.142 (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
(fixed theading) The articles themselves do not demonstrate any relevance to discrimination. I see no connection whatsoever between (to give another specific example) pedophobia (which is in any case already in the template) and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of young girls by age limits on consent or marriage. If the above opinions are "notable" in the sense of being reported by reliable secondary sources then it should be very easy to add relevant content supported by good references to those articles and I do not understand why this has not already been done. If an opinion is not "notable" in that sense then we are not allowed by Wikipedia policies to add the content to Wikipedia.
In the context of a navigation template the isolated link is "the content", standing for other relevant content in the linked article which might itself be a link (if the article is a list or disambiguation page) or relevant text with references. In this case there is (so far) no such content so the links qualify as original research. See also WP:ONUS which says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." Since there are currently no reliable sources connecting any of the five recently-restored links with discrimination I will have to remove them again if sources are not provided and will clearly be doing so within Wikipedia policy. Since this is a highly visible template it is important that unsourced material be removed fairly promptly, but I can wait 24 hours for the necessary content and references to be added to the linked articles.
Please bear in mind (as I already stated above) that "links can be restored if that seems appropriate once the articles concerned have been expanded", so a removal now does not prevent their restoration later provided the problems raised are dealt with (or of course deemed irrelevant by consensus which in this case would I think be unlikely).
With normal articles dubious or unsourced content can be tagged inline. That is clearly not practicable here, so I will add the standard separate documentation subpage and tag that. --Mirokado (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking changes on the sidebar and navbox

I have now reorganised both sources so that they have one link per line, which will make it easier to compare both and keep the contents aligned (similar changes also in the religious and cultural navboxen). For comparison, you can copy both sources to local files and use a comparison program like tkdiff (do we have an on-line comparison for the source of two pages?) I have aligned the content to some extent but further adjustments are probably necessary. The navbox does not need some of the shorter link text used in the sidebar and there could be a few extra links in the navbox since it appears full width at the bottom of the page. Apart from that, the fewer differences in each list of links the lower will be our maintenance effort. --Mirokado (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Gynocentrism is totally unsourced

I will remove the link to Gynocentrism (permalink) straight away because this article has no references whatsoever and does not mention discrimination. The article would need substantial improvement before it could be linked in any highly-visible navigation aid. At present it seems to represent the unexplained (no edit summaries) and unsupported (no references) opinions of a single editor. --Mirokado (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore it's not. It is now sourced. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You have added a source for the dictionary definition of the word, but neither this nor anything else in the article has anything at all to do with discrimination so it clearly does nothing to justify your inclusion of this link. Please update the article with sourced content demonstrating that Gynocentrists practice discrimination (or whatever, you have so far not even explained anywhere what you think the connection is), and remove the link again if you cannot provide a suitable source. As I have already pointed out by quoting Wikipedia policy, it is your responsibility to prove that your addition is relevant if challenged, not mine. --Mirokado (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

More unsourced links added

The recently-added links related to Ethnocentrism and some particular examples of it suffer from exactly the same problems as the age policy links discussed in #Age policy links, criteria for including links and recently removed. Most of the linked articles do not even mention discrimination, the two exceptions do so only incidentally. Thus the links are unsourced and their inclusion here is original research. Exactly the same remarks apply here and I will remove such unsupported links for the reasons already stated after 24 hours unless the articles have been updated with the necessary directly relevant sourced content. Also as before, it would be easy to restore the links later once the articles support them and there is consensus to do so. --Mirokado (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of them has sources, and by your very argument dog wouldn't be able to be included as an animal unless the article said so. Also, you will probably argue that it needs sources to be considered an animal. By your definition because Actaeus dosn't say animal it is not an animal. It is an organism but an organism is not necessarily an animal. Therefore even though the say Eurocentrism article says it is a form of ethnocentrism. It cant be discrimination. However if you look at ethnocentrism it says it is discrimination. Race War dosn't say discrimination. Blood Libel dosn't have dicrimination in there either. Disability hate crime dosn't. Eliminationism dosn't. Ethnic Joke dosn't say discrimination either. Forced conversion dosn't. Freak show dosn't. Gay bashing dosn't. Gendercide dosn't. Even Genocide dosn't. So because these articles don't mention the word discrimination they shouldn't be here. If you don't like it then put the words in there.--Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes most of the articles have sources, but the content, sourced or not, has nothing to do with discrimination. In order to make the links relevant the articles have to have relevant content and, for any statement not as immediately obvious as "a dog is an animal" it is necessary to provide a reliable source for verification. I have already linked and quoted the relevant Wikipedia policy. Anything to do with discrimination is almost certain to be contentious so there is a particular need for reliable sources. If you add a link to an article which does not support the implication of the link that is not only adding unsourced information to Wikipedia: if you have no source for the connection your addition is original research, the implied information is misleading to the reader and, as far as the current information provided by Wikipedia is concerned, incorrect. If you make sure that the articles you link to really do support the implied subject, with suitable references, then these concerns will go away.
I have checked. Again. Ethnocentrism (permalink) does not mention discrimination.
As far as your list of other articles is concerned, I note that you recognise that many other links you have been adding have no direct relevance to discrimination either. Gay bashing for example is persecution rather than discrimination. If I were to beat somebody up on a Friday night I would not be discriminating against them, I would be assaulting them. I have not yet had time to look through the rest of the articles but your remedy against any doubts about relevance will always be the same: add suitable reliably sourced content to the articles where it is missing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
No further response so I have now removed the centrism links with no support in the linked article. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus if you have not already done so. It states Wikipedia's policy for achieving consensus. The removal of these links in that context is: restoring the previously established consensus and indicating that discussion and perhaps other changes would be needed before they can be restored. As I have already made clear several times it does not mean they can never be restored. Having said that I have looked for references in some cases and think it is very unlikely that you will find any that would support the additional content which would be needed. Restoring content without addressing the concerns raised (or otherwise achieving consensus) breaks Wikipedia policy on consensus, so please do not do that (again). --Mirokado (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I see problems with your methods. You are only using your not mentioning discrimination formula when it benefits your ideas. Technically none of the General or Social forms are actually discrimination but a form of prejudice. Prejudice is the beliefs and discrimination is the action. Any sociologist knows this. Gay Bashing is discrimination as is all persecution because it is unfair action as opposed to belief. If you which to use your method you should do it in a proper way. And why if Androcentrism is a form of discrimination isn't Gnyocentrism a form. If one is the other would be the exact same thing in the opposite direction. That really makes no sense. I would like to see you try to go through with your method. I bet no one would agree with you if you did it properly following your own guidelines so go ahead and delete all articles that don't mention discrimination. Don't forget Genocide. Remember, genocide isn't discrimination according to your method its persecution. And non of the General or Social forms are valid because they are prejudice. If you wish to say I'm being silly I might just say I'm using your own methods. If you don't make these changes than I will.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may say so, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before removing lots of links for the reasons you have stated above. I left Androcentrism because the article suggests a fairly direct historical relationship to, for example, discrimination against women in education. There is clearly no similar relationship in the case of Gynocentrism. There may well, however, be a few further links with low relevance that could be removed... We can consider removing specialised links if there is already a sufficiently clear generic link and avoiding nearly-duplicate links to closely related topics. We could also suggest that any newly-added link should replace a less-relevant existing link in order that the template not grow any larger than it is at present. --Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read the link you gave me. First off, one person is not a consensus in a one-on-one argument. Second, the link says not to protest wikipedias policy that way. Your method is not following wikipedia policy. Or at least you have not shown it has. It is a matter of opinion vs. opinion. If you do not agree with what I am doing then try to get a real reason for me to agree with you rather than it dosn't mention discrimination and therefore is not discrimination. And learn the terms prejudice, discrimination and persecution and what each of them mean. Here I will help you.
Prejudice-A prejudice is a prejudgment, an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy usually based on their status within a group
Discrimination-prejudicial "TREATMENT" of an individual based on their status within a group.
Persecution-Systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. (btw, gay bashing is not always systematic)
Discrimination here, for this template is used as a cover for all three. The prejudice thought, the discriminatory actions, and the persecutive policies.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not do these changes as of now and will only go to them if I need to. I am stubborn but if I have been convinced I am wrong I will gladly apologize. I am not attacking you as a person. This is a purely intellectual argument. I'm attacking your methods. I ask for you to come up with a better reason to remove these articles than "they don't mention discrimination".-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"First off": Quoting from Wikipedia:Consensus: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any special effort... Clear communication in edit summaries can make this process easier." Thus the state of the content before a change will normally represent the current consensus. A disagreement between two editors in "a one-on-one argument" certainly indicates a lack of consensus for the change. I have already quoted the Wikipedia policy which states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (WP:ONUS) and note that you have so far made no relevant updates to any of the target articles.
"Secondly": Quoting from Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, ..." so it is in fact discussing a reaction to the application, not to the policy or guideline itself. It was directly relevant in the context in which I used it, but I hope not to our further discussion.
"not following": By quoting the relevant policies or guidelines in my comments I believe that I have shown that I am following them.
"If you do not agree...": As already stated, the burden of evidence lies with you. Update the target articles with reliably sourced content which establishes a clear link to discrimination. If you do not accept my telling you that this is in fact Wikipedia policy then someone else will have to tell you, but I can assure you that providing reliable sources is a fundamental Wikipedia policy relevant to all content and applicable to challenged content in particular. A third party will pay no attention to what I think, or what you think, but look at the references to decide whether the content is notable and verifiable. No references, not verifiable. In this case there is not even any relevant content to start with.
"Try to get a real reason...": I have said "Most of the linked articles do not even mention discrimination, the two exceptions do so only incidentally." The "even" and "incidentally" in this sentence qualify "do not mention discrimination" thus indicating that the problem is more than the mere absence of a word. "Thus the links are unsourced and their inclusion here is original research." The lack of relevant content with sources, which means that the addition of the links has no verifiable support, is the fundamental problem and quite sufficently "a real reason" for you.
If you still do not agree with the above, Wikipedia provides various dispute resolution mechanisms. If however you either cannot provide the necessary updates or do not wish to do so, I think you might as well accept now that these links cannot be added. --Mirokado (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said before you are not using a policy or guideline therefore your argument does not work. You are stating that in your opinion biased outlooks on things are not discrimination. What policy says that in order to be discrimination it must mention discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"you are not using a policy": Well of course I am - in fact several. Just read what I have written. Wikipedia:Consensus describes how the current consensus is determined. I linked to WP:SOURCE which explains that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The same link goes on require attribution: ""This policy requires that ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation," and quite explicitly requires that the added content be relevant: "... and that the source directly support the material in question..." WP:ONUS from which I have already quoted (twice) defines your responsibility to provide the necessary reliable references.
"You are stating that in your opinion...": No. I am stating that there are no sources which "directly support the material in question" and asking you to provide them. I hope that is clear enough. Any other comments, whether or not you found them helpful, are subordinate to this issue.
Please stick to the policy issue of reliable sources. If you are able to supply the necessary sources we will have something worth discussing further but even then it will be the sources that determine Wikipedia's content not our own opinions. --Mirokado (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have removed them for now. Your argument still sucks and technically all those articles I listed earlier would under your method be deleated. I am thinking about placing every one of the centrism articles into the related category however. And that one is pretty hard to deny.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced links again

Your idea of adding the links to the related topics section is helpful and I have tried to respond positively. There have been no relevant updates to any of the articles we have recently been discussing, so I think it is still not possible to add them en masse, but I suggest below that we retain Ethnocentrism and try to update it. I will shortly remove most of the rest. The reasons stated above (lack of sources, lack of consensus) still apply and the explanations are still relevant. And I still don't understand your reluctance to update the articles if there are sources backing your opinion.

Although there is no relevant content to discuss I will expand on some of the other issues which would also need to be considered. A consensus still needs to emerge for content to be added, but there is room for compromise once there is content to compromise about. Separately signed subsections so we can take each issue further as necessary. If a subsection gets long we can break it out to a separate section... --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Positive rather than negative

You gave the definition of discrimination you are using: 'Discrimination-prejudicial "TREATMENT" of an individual based on their status within a group.' (your capitalisation). These articles are discussing political, anthropological and archeological theories with in most cases no mention of any related actions or treatment. In a couple of cases any mention of discrimination is incidental. The context of the centrism theories is to emphasise the positive aspects which their proponents wish to associate with their relevant group. Other terms, already covered in this template, already deal with the negative aspects of hostility towards or prejudicial treatment of other groups, so lots of specialised centrism links are not really necessary. One or two generic links would however help the reader who is approaching the issue from that angle, as long as the links do actually provide some relevant information. --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue emphasis

I accept that any relationship to discrimination need not be direct for the "Related topics" but the relationship still needs to be clear and demonstrated by the sources supporting the article content. You have just added ten links related to one theme most of which have no particular relevance to the main topic in a section which previously had nine links. This is clearly disproportionate emphasis on a minor topic. Even if you find material better supporting a connection, we still need to select links which provide the reader with a helpful and balanced selection of related topics. My positive suggestion here is: Ethnocentrism would be a good top-level topic which can itself mention other race-related centrisms as appropriate. It should be easy to update this article if there is any basis for its inclusion. The more explicit aspects of racial discrimination are adequately covered by other links and those articles can also be updated to clarify any impact of centrist theories. --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Particular articles

As far as Gynocentrism is concerned, there is still no properly sourced content at all (the dictionary definition only supports the article title and is not really necessary anyway) let alone any suggestion of a connection to discrimination. I have looked and do not think you will be able to find anything, but if you can you will be able to improve the article.

Adultcentrism states: "Research has also shown this leads adults to stay within their own perspective, thus discriminating against children through adultism.[8]" As far as I can see adultism is the term connected to the discrimination and this already appears in the template, so in the template adultcentrism is redundant. The template needs to concentrate on the most direct among closely related topics. If adultism does not mention adultcentrism sufficiently clearly, we can update it. --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User interface

The sidebar is a navigation aid intended to let the user jump between closely-related articles. The large number of irrelevant links would be a definite problem, misleading the user who followed them and distracting from other more relevant links. --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A way forward?

You previously removed Androcentrism "for consistency" but I still think that is the only article which demonstrates the sort of clear linkage which is necessary. I will leave this again. I will also leave Ethnocentrism in the hope that we can update that fairly soon. With just that to worry about and with it in the "Related topics" section I am happy to help try to find sources and update the article over the next week or so, perhaps others can help too. Apart from that, I really suggest adding links one by one rather than ten at a time, making sure that each linked article really does support the connection before adding it (easier one at a time), keeping the template balanced and useable by adding top-level links rather than too many specialised links and keeping the template at roughly its present size by careful selection of links. --Mirokado (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me try and explain this to you. I'm not going to be mean like I have earlier and I admit inmaturity on my part. Any centrism perspective is where one looks at the perspective through a biased outlook. So for example it would be very ethnocentric if when asked to draw a mailman they all draw a white mailman. I used my definition of prejudice and discrimination to show that this sidebar is not strictly about the proper definition of discrimination in the first place as it has not shown disctinction between prejudice and discrimination. Neither have the respective form articles which have been renamed things like discrimination againist people bassed on skin color. One form of centrism no one thinks about here is Heterosexism. Look at the holiday of Valentine's Day. Valentine's day is a very heterosexist (hetero-centric) holiday because it often ignores homosexual, bisexual, not to mention all asexuals. Therefore any centrism can lead directly to discrimination although usually not in an overt way. Sociology and minority studies teach out covert and overt discrimination.______centrism leads to covert discrimination-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As for your look on the national centrism here is a prime example. Americentrism. First of all the article is not perfect and should be merged with American Exceptionalism. The United States is an incredibly stuck up country which thinks its better than everyone else I wish to quote their national anthem "land of the free, and home of the brave." Their pledge of allegiance say "liberty and justice for all." This sets in the patriotic mind that we have little to fix but what about the immigration law in Arizona that lead to the racial profiling of hispanics not to mention the racial profiling of arabs after 9/11. What about the fact that only 13 of the states protect from employment discrimination based on gender identity. 18 on sexual orientation. (Although the numbers for both do go up a little if you only count state government jobs as opposed to working in private non-religious buisnesses). What about the fact that women in the military still can't go into combat. When America is stuck up and think they are "the land of the free" with "liberty and justice for all" they automatically ignore that these groups are being oppressed. These examples only count for Americentrism. There are other examples for other centrism. I gave a few in my comment above.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will be thinking about what you have said over the next few days and intend to spend some time on this over the weekend, but certainly no more time this evening! --Mirokado (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I have looked for references mentioning both ethnocentrism and discrimination. There do not seem to be very many and often the words are mentioned more or less independently in different parts of the article. This one lends general support for the relationship between the two topics:
  • "This ethnocentricity made white Americans think they were doing their indigenous counterparts a favor." [1]
This one seems to suggest indirectly that ethnocentrism can undermine opposition to discrimination, but is too tenuous to go in the article:
  • "Cultural Relativists see the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as enumerating rights and freedoms which are culturally, ideologically, and politically nonuniversal. They argue that current human rights norms possess a distinctively 'Western' or 'Judeo-Christian' bias, and hence, are an 'ethno-centric' construct with limited applicability."[2]
I was surprised not to be able to find more, but perhaps being unfamiliar with the subject I am missing lots of articles. My general impression after this search is that the current articles lack mention of several related concepts, but that there is enough of a common-sense relationship between ethnocentrism and discrimination for that article to be in the template. I would still like it to be updated, though, and will keep looking as yet another background activity. --Mirokado (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, these two quotes from articles in the search results are quite interesting. The first shows the importance, in Wikipedia's terms, of having reliable sources and the second why it may be difficult to find them!
  • "... when discussing culture, allow the chips of evidence to fall where they may under conditions of careful empirical research even if the results may shatter a popular, or well-liked, belief."[3]
  • "... Critical Pedagogy, even when it collapses into dogmatic, non-creative, and ethnocentrist practices of 'emancipation' and 'critique', still symbolizes the quest for the totally other; a refusal to be swallowed by the temptations, imperatives, and fashions of the world of facts, the productivity of its power-relations and the limits set by its historical horizons".[4]
References
  1. ^ Warren, Tom (2009). Honors Seminar in Contemporary Civilization (ed.). "Globalization & Religion". The Ethnography of Globalization. Montclair NJ: Montclair State University. p. 130. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  2. ^ Preis, Ann-Belinda S (1996). "Human Rights as Cultural Practice: An Anthropological Critique" (PDF). Human Rights Quarterly. 18: 288. ISSN 0275-0392. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  3. ^ Makedon, Alexander (1996). "What Multiculturalism Should Not Be". Chicago State Univeristy. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
  4. ^ Gur-Ze'ev, Ilan (2005). Gur-Ze'ev, Ilan (ed.). "Introduction" (PDF). Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy Today - Toward a New Critical language in Education. Faculty of Education, University of Haifa. p. 20. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
-- Mirokado (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced material

This edit reintroduced disputed material with no edit summary, while is the subject of an ongoing discussion and for which there is no consensus. I will waste no further time repeating what I have already explained carefully several times. I have tried hard to explain Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources without implying that such editing is disruptive, but this edit is a clear breach of Wikipedia etiquette, is wasting yet more of my time formulating this message, and is thus clearly disruptive. Please, User:Rainbowofpeace, read this article and note in particular: "A disruptive editor is an editor who: ... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, ..." which is the major concern which you have persistently failed to address. You need to address that and the other points I have raised on the talk page before adding any contested links. "Addressing" does not of course mean "doing exactly what I say" but if we can't agree you need to seek a wider consensus for your wishes, or of course an administrative fiat (which also requires consensus). The onus to do this is upon you as you are seeking to add unsourced, contested material.

I now inform you that I am following Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors. "If editor unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around do nothing, if not revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage." See previous sections for many clear explanations. The suggested compromise is the two links we have (I think) agreed to retain plus trying to find references to improve those articles and taking any further updates one step at a time, updating the articles first as necessary. Since there are still no relevant sources, I will revert again according to the preceding quote. --Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I disagree and I wish for consistency. If you feel that most of the centrism articles don't belong here then that is fine. But don't say that some count and some don't. I have removed centrism articles because all are inherently by definition and etymology related to each other and it wouldn't make sense to have some and not the others. Although how you can argue that it is not related is beyond me it is not my job to forcibily point out the right direction but to try and convince you. By pure logic all centrism concepts are biased views and are related. Therefore if one dosn't fit none should fit so here is my comprimise. Leave ALL centrism articles out.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. OK I can accept the change you have now made and we can now finish this discussion from my point of view. --Mirokado (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination logo is discriminatory

Why is the logo for the Discrimination portal a white male with a slash running through him? Is the intent of the logo to suggest that only white males discriminate? Or perhaps that doing away with white males would somehow end discrimination?

What exactly is the symbolism behind the logo supposed to mean? You wouldn't feature a red, black or yellow man like that, and just exactly why would any stylized male figure symbolize "discrimination"?

Please remove this hypocritical and prejudicial logo and replace it with something that isn't racist or sexist. The Editors must be losing their touch. Usually the are far less obvious in their politics.Richardkeefe57 (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is humourous. That is a male bathroom symbol. Now if you want to argue there should be a female version to I would be inclinded to agree with you. However your comment the man being white is quite frankly silly. When there is a bathroom symbol that is white on blue backgroud does that mean that only whites are allowed in that bathroom. As a matter a fact the same signs are often used in Asia and Africa so it has nothing to do with being white. Besides lets just say it was a white male. He could be discriminated againist for sexual orientation, religion, mental disability and many other things. So lets try and be fair and assume good faith. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The current link to Mentalism leads to "people who hypnotize others as a performing art" instead of Mentalism_(Discrimination) which is "People who don't like others based on the fact that they have physiological issues" where it should lead. Thank you.

That's been done (not sure when or by whom). --Mirokado (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-communism

Is anti-communism really a form of discrimination? Isn't it just opposition to communist ideology? 187.36.112.52 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ask Joseph McCarthy or Hitler. Both discriminated against communists. The answer is simple. I is usually an opposition to communism but can easily become opposition to communists.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Numerus Clausus

Really? DS Belgium (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Solved. The article supports that it is discriminatory in some cases, so I clarified the template accordingly. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

When is it not discrimatory the pure fact that they do it by race or religion is discriminatory. It would be one thing if they just took the first few students who applied or did it by pure educational achievements or even something more random like shirt color which is completely random but the fact that they do it by religion and race is automatically discriminatory no matter what the purpose. Name a numerous clausus that dosn't do it by these. It also can't do it by socioeconomic class, diability or any other protected group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As you describe it, the entry belongs in the template. The template reflects the articles, especially article ledes. If any part of the article is in error, please edit the article or bring the issue up on the article's talk page. I don't know all the contexts in which the term has been used, but it's almost impossible to come up with an institution that does not have a numerical capacity limit of some kind that need not have anything to do with how people are selected; for example, a building is of a finite size. Whom someone chooses to admit is one venue where discrimination may occur. If the article is revised to show the practice as always or never discriminatory, then the template should be revised, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Affirmative action.

Yep, It shore is teh very definition of discrimination, amirite?

Can we erase it, it just seems embarrassing and offensive.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Solved. It's a relevant article. I moved it into a new heading and added others I recognized at the moment as belonging with it. If others also belong, they too can be moved or added. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a lovely addition and I hope people get to add more to it.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speciesism and proposal for new grouping

The article on discrimination says explicitly that discrimination happens between human beings. How does speciesism belong here? The edit-summary argument, that speciesism is "also about discrimination between speciesists and nonspeciesists" is a nonstarter. First of all the article on speciesism doesn't talk about that. Second of all, that wouldn't be speciesism, it'd be speciesismism. Write that article and we could have it in the sidebar.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Agree in part. You have a point (except for the linguistics, since duplicate-suffix forms don't generally survive). I probably won't research and add to either article on the issue. However, I think it would be good to add a grouping to the sidebar, further down, for topics related to discrimination, such as speciesism, and maybe I'll do that. I'll wait a week for any response. (I edited the talk topic/section heading to widen it.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I was kidding about "speciesismism." A related topics grouping is a fine solution as far as I'm concerned. If you'd like to do it, go ahead (we seem to be the only editors who care right now). I'll follow your lead on the navbox afterwards.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll wait anyway, having promised to do so, but, meanwhile, do you have any ideas for what else should be in such a grouping? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
My current plan is to move the list for Related Topics down and give that list its own heading, add speciesism to it, and move one or more of its topics back into discrimination lists. I don't think diversity is mainly a form of discrimination but religious persecution is, so the latter should be further up (and the problem of apparent duplication of that topic is solvable, too). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This was discussed a long time ago in the articles talk page history. Speciesism is a form of discrimination for this template. Many things on here are not always considered discrimination. I could tell you lots of people don't think adultism is. And a ton don't want homophobia on the list. I make no claims on whether or not it is always considered a form of discrimination but merely that it has been considered such. neuron2.net/papers/Speciesism.pdf masalladelaespecie.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/whatisspeciesism.pdf Even the speciesism article has a quote that calls speciesism discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The speciesism article does not in fact have a quote that calls speciesism discrimination. It has a quote from one person, not a secondary source, who makes an analogy between the two. Whether or not it was discussed before we can discuss it again. And who cares whether people don't want homophobia or adultism or whatever on the list, the substance of my argument is that, according to the WP article and every social science book I've ever read, discrimination happens *between* human beings. Please address the actual arguments being made if you want to join the conversation. Do you have some specific problem with the compromise worked out above?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I just provided sources stating that speciesism is discrimination. And I must say that for the most part I actually agree that speciesism is not discrimination in the same fashion as the others. But when I look at animal cruelty what is the difference between that and child abuse? Speciesism should never be taken as more important than human discrimination but it still is considered by many to be discrimination. And what really defines discrimination are the social justice, civil rights and sociological organizations. I see no problem with a controversy being talked about or even it being put into the other forms section but it is not merely a related topic. It has been argued that is the same thing. Whether it is or isn't I guess is defined by your definition of discrimination which varies widely but it still has been called discrimination and should be addressed at least as being controversely called such not merely a related topic like slavery or police brutality.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
If by sources you mean that one quote in the speciesism article, that's not a source, it's one guy's statement that speciesism is *analogous* to discrimination. If it's considered by many to be discrimination, find some sources that say it is discrimination. The difference between animal cruelty and child abuse is that one is being done to non-human animals and the other is being done to human beings. For all it matters here, animal cruelty may be worse than child abuse, it may be as bad, or it may be less bad. The issue is that discrimination happens among human beings by every relevant definition *and* the articles on both speciesism and discrimination. Please drop the red herrings about what's important. What's important is the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I provided two website addresses above. You should really check them out. Both define clearly what specieism is. And at least one if not the other is an academic paper.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

They don't seem like reliable sources to me. You want to take it to RSN and see what other people think about them? I can't find any reliable sources anywhere that support your position, and every single other article in that template is about interhuman interactions. I understand the analogy, but I don't think that it's more than an analogy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly taking this too literally. That quote was from the article was written by an expert in his field and the fact of the matter is that before speciesism was talked about discrimination was on interhuman but things change. At one time Eugenics was defined as a science. The fact of the matter is that the definition of discrimination as only applying to humans is being contested by many animal rights advocates. I'm not saing we should keep it on because it is always considered discrimination (it clearly isn't) but as I said above people contest that many others are discrimination "Adultism isn't discrimination. I have a right to hit my kids when they misbehave." or "Homophobia is not discrimination. It is fighting for our religious freedoms." If you want to you can put it into a controversial forms section but I think that all forms have been controversial so that wouldn't help.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think the sources are reliable for speciesism being discrimination? Your analogies are unconvincing, because they are all interhuman interactions. I agree with you that there are those who would argue that x-ism isn't discrimination, but that's not actually the conversation we're having here. I already think that having speciesism in the template at all is bad, but it seems that consensus on that is against me. Hence the compromise being discussed above, that it be included in the template as something related to discrimination. As you've already supplied a reliable source (the one from the speciesism article) that says it's analogous to discrimination, I think it's OK to say it's related to discrimination, but, really, by any actual definition in reliable sources that I've seen, it is not actually discrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to proceed with the solution already proposed and on the same schedule, because creating the separate heading is useful regardless of where speciesism is ultimately located. Generally, a navigation box can be somewhat more inclusive than its main article might be, since precision of a definition should be in an article, to be discovered by readers when they get there, so navigation boxes should bring people to where they can read about topical boundaries and not keep readers from the articles. Articles get edited about definitions more often, it seems, than navigation aids get edited to add and subtract articles according to changing definitions.

Speciesism seems to be the only article in its topical range. I can imagine distinctions between discriminating against all nonhumans, discriminating against all nonmammals, discriminating against all nonwalking animals, discriminating against all nonanimals, discriminating against all nonanimals and nonvegetables, and discriminating against all life forms. Putting aside what's a practicable belief system (one could argue that one should strive not to discriminate and thus have a rationale by which not to commit suicide for violation of a desire, and I think one less-well-known but long-lived religion objects to killing any life form, even bacteria, and there is a health point in favor of not killing all bacteria), ideals can be the subject of belief systems, which in turn can be classified. So speciesism could be a catch-all for a variety of discriminations by humans against, or not against, various categories of nonhumans. I don't know if Wikipedia has any article on any human-vs.-nonhuman discrimination other than speciesism. If not, and if good sourcing exists, such articles can be written and then added to the template. In the meantime, I think speciesism should be listed as a related subject and therefore in the template. If other articles already exist, they should all be linked to from the speciesism article and can also be listed in the template, unless there are too many, in which case the template may not have room for more than one plus a listing for a new template (not now existing, as far as I know) for speciesism-related articles; i.e., if there are too many, a new navigation template would be a good idea, to be added to speciesism-related articles, not to all discrimination articles.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I think putting speiciesm back in with an * stating that it is controversial would be fine after all neuron2.net/papers/Speciesism.pdf and masalladelaespecie.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/whatisspeciesism.pdf both define it as discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Speciesism is in as of yesterday, and it's in the Related Topics list. To mark or list it as controversial is something that could be done to just about everything in the whole template. Navigation templates don't replace articles and shouldn't require duplicate editorial maintenance. Just conforming the two templates to each other, as I did yesterday and couldn't complete (as discussed in the Edit Summaries), was the result of maintenance not having been done by other editors earlier, so adding to that burden is cause for hestitation, I think. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar/Archive_1"