Template talk:Discrimination/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

On keeping the template compact.

Genism for all intents and purposes is the same as Genetic Discrimination. The reason I think Genism should be used at in the template is simple, after you typed in genetic discrimination it became the largest link in the general section. Lets keep in mind that this template is already huge and keeping it compact (yet as complete as possible) is good.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should change a bunch of the other ones as well. Keeping the template compact seems less important to me than using words in it that actually mean something to the reader, which "genism" does not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How about if we change the wording of the group at the top of the template to say something like "based on" and then we can use e.g. "race", "color", "genetics", or whatever, and skip the neologisms. Some of the terms in there now are OK, but others make very little sense. "Genism" was bad, but "religionism" is ridiculous. If we adopt my suggestion the template will be even more compact probably, since we'll be able to exchange e.g. "religion" for "religionism".— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will agree to that if and only if you keep it consistent and make all of them that way. And remember that certains ones specifically racism and sexism define more than just what they sound like. Racism often applys to discrimination based not only on race but ethnicity and nationality as well and sexism dosn't only apply to sex (the physical characteristic of your body) but gender (how you see yourself).-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that "racism" is different from "discrimination based on race," so you don't want to shorten that one because it'd be inaccurate, but also that you only will agree to shortening any if all are shortened? I'm just trying to clarify what you're proposing here.

No I'm not saying that racism is different from "discrimination based on race" it is although technically it is more than that as well. Racism has been used to describe discrimination against Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, Gypsies and even national groups like the Irish or Canadians. This clearly shows that racism isn't only about race but also ethinicity and nationality. What I'm saying is that I will support you changeing Genism to Genotype with a link to the article on Genetic Discrimination if you change all others Ageism to Age, Classism to Class etc. I was only saying that racism and sexism will be difficult because they are technically partially misnomers because they include more than what they say they are. Antisemitism has the same probelm but in the reverse fashion. Antisemitism literally means discrimination or hatred of semites but usually today only refers to Jews. I could change it in my way to show you what I'm thinking and you could change it back or discuss it if you think that would help me explain it better.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How about if we change the name of the group to something like "types of discrimination" and then we can use adjectives like "racial", "genetic", and so on? That would be more consistent with the way that the articles are named. Also, are you adamant that compactness is the primary virtue? If so, perhaps it's not necessary to have a single system. If you'd like to change it to reflect your idea, please do so, so that we have something concrete to talk about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I quite like your proposed changes, RoP. What do you think about changing the descriptor in the first section to "based on" rather than "general"? Also, do you have any objection to moving "pregnancy discrimination" up into the specific forms section? It seems more appropriate there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should remain general because that if we name it based on we will have to move from the specific section up. I think general really means that anyone can be affected its based on your race, gender etc. whereas specifics only affect specific groups. I have no problem however with pregnancy being moved up to the specific section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

On Anti-communism, Anti-Democracy and Anti-Fascism

The anti-communism article clearly mentions various attacks against communists as a group. As far as I know there is only an article on anti-democratic thought. The great purge wasn't an attack against people who believed in democracy but an attack on peasants. I don't know what SU pop is. As for you anti-Nazi symbols. They were not banned specifically because they were fascist but because of the stuff that came with it. Namely genocide against various groups of people and hate organizations.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Communism

Communism is not a manifestation of discrimination, at least no more than any other political system. Yes, I agree communism has been used to discriminate against people. But ultimately, the way that democracy has lead to anti-LGBT laws passing could be similar. Would you like to add "Democracy" to the manifestations list?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It is inherently classist [1] and overtly so. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Democracy, of the other hand, is a more complicated doctrine with 2500 years of history. It has at times been defined in a matter that would make it inherently discriminatory, when it is described as "mob rule" and contrasted with Politeia. Wiki has Ochlocracy defined as mob rule and Democracy defined as a process; but if it is to avoid degeneration into an Ochlocracy, the rights of minorities have to be protected by a constitution. The problem of the degeneration of good forms of government (such as democracy) into rights-violating (discriminatory) forms (such as ochlocracy) gave rise to the classical political theory of Mixed constitution--which was the prevailing theory of constitution republican government from Aristotle to Montesquieu. We could add Ochlocracy to the template. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong. But I was always taught that at its root communism dosn't believe in classes and believes in making a classless society. So I think I'm missing your point about classism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point of Mao's cultural revolution and Pol Pot's killing fields. The slogan "workers of the world unite" makes it very clear that communism is for one class only. Others are discriminated against. They have a false consciousness, not having had the appropriate relationship with the economic means of production. They must be eliminated ... as you point out, only one class must survive. Over 150 million were killed in the process. This deliberate act of democide is history's ultimate act of discrimination. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, communism is meant to make there only be one class. Now I will admit that this has been forceful but that dosn't reflect upon communism in general. You are not putting Stalinism in the template or Maoism you put Communism. Communism was founded by Marx. Therefore if you are going to put Communism there it has to be common to all forms of communism. Marx goal was to eliminate the class system and make it so everyone was the same class, in other words take the power from the rich not destroy them. My other problem with this is simply that if you look at history governments have killed under the name communism (whether or not they were actually communist) but governments have also discriminated against and at times even killed communists. I have no problem with certain events that were done in the name of communism being added to the template, I don't even think I have an issue with certain forms of communism being added namely Stalinism but I do think that putting Communism as a general manifestation of discrimination dosn't work when Karl Marx clearly created it as a means of equaling out classes (not destroying them). If anything I think that Stalanism, Leninism, Maoism and the others have perverted Marx's actual teachings. However this is not the place to discuss this. If we are going to add Communism a) we should at least add the other forms of government that are discriminatory and yes that includes democracy and b) we must make sure we are addressing communism in general. My recommmendations are to put individual events on the template and possibly consider adding certain forms.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Communism, as opposed to socialism, was the use of violent means to eradicate the bourgeois. Yes, it's aim was a society without a bourgeois. But so what? Hitler's aim was a society without Jews and his means were appropriate to that aim. The goal of a uniform society often requires violence and discrimination. From the very moment that Marx said "workers [not all people] of the world unite" in 1848 to the rise of Lenin in 1917, communism has always assumed that violence was needed to destroy the middle class. Persuasion wasn't an option. It was the very identity of those whose consciousness wasn't formed by manual labor that required an application of state-power. This was the aim of Mao's cultural revolution and Pol Pot's policies. The ultimate goal of uniformity doesn't contradict the fact that the means (applied over generations) is one of violent discrimination--by design. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree however even if you are right that dosn't justify it being in this template. Malcolm X did many violent things that could be discrimianation, and so did Meir Kahne and his organization the Jewish Defense League heck parts of almost every civil rights movement "discriminated against the majority at one time" and almost every minority has had retaliation efforts. Even the LGBT community with Queer Nation. If what you are saying is true you are actually talking about reverse discrimination and it should go into the related topics section like other forms of related topics such as Affirmative Action and Zionism (which I am going to add. These were also intended as a way to combat discrimination against an oppressed people. Also it is painfully obvious that you are wrong about communism when you look for example at modern American communist organizations. If anyone should be considered violent I would think it would be anarchists. I've seen far more riots started by them then the communist groups where I live (which is near Seattle). As I said if it dosn't apply to communism in general it shouldn't be on the template. You tried to put it in manifestations not systems. I have added democide to manifestations. Is that a good comprimise?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not just saying that communists can be violent or individual communists can be discriminatory. Of course, that's true for any group. Communism is a form of class-warfare, by definition. It wants to abolish all classes except the proletariat. It's the class-based counterpart to the race-based forms of discrimination. Extreme forms of discrimination want to rid society of diversity by force if necessary. Communism is surely in that category. How can you not include it? Reconsider. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically if capitalism was taken down and money was worthless we could form a communist government without killing people. Communist see themselves as ending a caste system. Some are violent, some have other solutions. However as long as there are those who believe in destroying only the capitalist system and invalidating the value of money. Communism is not inheritantly discriminatory. As a matter a fact in theory by eliminating the class caste system it could be seen as a counterdiscriminatory philosophy. I strongly suggest you read more about what communism is in its purest form. I do agree though that communism has done some horrible things but if we are going to add communism as a manifestation wouldn't it make sense to add Christianity as a manifestation. Christianity is a philosophy that has killed millions of people, it might even rival communism. So the question is where do we draw the line. I do think that adding a link some how to Mass killings under communism would be beneficial as well as Anti-communist mass killings.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is one of essence versus incidence. Communism is opposed to and discriminates against “parasitic” classes in principle not merely by the accidental choice due to a particular or even the most common regimes in communist country. As you point out, it’s aim is total elimination of those classes. The complete eradication of a group is the aim of virulent forms of discrimination. It is not merely a hope, or a wish, but the purpose of the movement. In addition, being militant atheists communism (which controls all property) discriminates and persecutes religious institutions on principle, not merely accidentally. You can argue that capitalism discriminates against those without money. I have no problem with that. Some might argue that poverty isn’t an identity marker and I’ll leave this for other editors to address. Class, however, is certainly an identity marker. Aristocracy and peasantry are hardcore class identity categories just as ethnic and national-origin are identity markers.

This history of class discrimination is interesting. Of course, it is usually the upper classes that have power and discriminate against the lower classes. But discrimination by the masses or lower classes against the aristocracy has been noted since democracy was first invented. Classical political theory (in the 2000 years from Aristotle to Montesquieu) held that there were three types of government each in two forms. In their good form there can be monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy in which the rule of one, few, or many exists with the good of the whole community taken into account and the interest & rights of the other groups respected. In their evil form (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) the rule of the one, few, or many, inherently discriminates against and oppresses the other classes. (Sometimes the word polity was used for the good form of “rule of many” while democracy was used for the bad form.)

Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, (at times Machiavelli) and every advocate of republican government down to Montesquieu in the 18th century advocated a mixture of the good forms to prevent a degeneration of the good forms into their evil counterparts and thus avoiding the vicious cycle known as Kyklos. Cicero called mixed government a “concord among the orders.” Thus, we see that communism, which eliminates the other classes, is the discriminatory form of democracy that used to be called ochlocracy. It seeks to eliminate the other non-proletarian classes. That is by its essence, not by the accidental policy of any particular rules. Yes, after the discrimination is complete there will be no one left to discriminate against but that true in all virulent forms of discrimination that seek to eliminate diversity. It nevertheless aims at purity via a path of discrimination. Won't you reconsider? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In the course of considering whether Christianity or Islam are discriminatory by nature, and not by accident, we can do a similar analysis. Christianity was created by men who were out of power and had no hopes of earthly rule. Thus there was no talk about acting in a discriminatory manner. All discrimination is done by God in the next life. Of course when Christianity came to power in the 4th century it outlawed all other religions and imposed a harsh orthodoxy but I doubt there could be a consensus as to whether this is by nature or by accident since the original phase did not propose discrimination as a general rule. (I wouldn't oppose the label applied to organized Christianity or institutional Christianity.) Islam, on the other hand, from its inception imposed Jim Crow type laws on non-Muslims as dhimmi and sometimes called dhimmitude. We have Jim Crow listed, we might want to add dhimmitude. I’ll leave that to other editors to decide. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the difference point where we are missing is that you see communism as eliminating classes only through violence. I agree it can do that but I also must state that it has never required that. You are half right that the goal of communism is to eliminate classes. However eliminating classes can and has been done by other means as pointed out above, eliminating the economic system. And do you really want to add in contradictorary statements. Inheritantly communists discriminate against democracy and capitalists and democracy and capitalist discriminate against communist. Christianity and Islam (and to a far lesser extent other religions) discriminate against each other, women and the LGBT community. Atheists have also been anti-religious and antisemitic at times even without religion via communism as you pointed out. Democracy has been used to violate the rights of minorities because that the majority won't allow them to have these rights. Do we really want to fill up this template with all that. Especially when in all these cases, Christianity, Islam, Zionism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Captialism and Atheism there have been good people and bad people. I'm telling you that communism does not require violence. It has usually used it but does not require it. The goal is a classless society by invalidating the success of the upper-classes not necessarily eliminating them. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination doesn't require violence. It's just the worse kind. As you point out communism has always sought to eliminate the upper classes just as the most vicious forms of racial supremacism has always sought to eliminate other racial or ethnic groups even if not by violent means. It's not a question that some class-supremacist or race-supremacist employ violence but that both of these groups discriminate against the undesirable groups.

However, I'll concede on other grounds. I see we're avoiding explicit mention of discriminatory political ideologies. For example, there's no Nazism in the template. There is also no listing of non-governmental movements such as the Klan. The type of discrimination that these groups practice are listed but not the ideologies that advocate discrimination. Thus, leaving out communism follows that pattern. Sadly, there's no article for the discrimination against or outright elimination of the upper class. Thus, this type of class discrimination can't be added to the template except via the political ideology that practices it. But a prohibition on ideologies prohibits that choice. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I found the generic type of discrimination I was looking for. It's Class enemies and it was used to discriminate political enemies "of the people." It was used by certain communist regimes but not confined to this one political ideology. It is similar to McCarthyism in that it was an hysteria used to discriminate and persecute. Class enemies disenfranchises whole groups that are deemed "enemies of the people" or "enemies of society." Jason from nyc (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have conceded with your choice but have changed the name to reflect the actual name of the article. Thank you for this lively debate. I quite enjoyed it.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

Legacy

Question book-new.svg This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013) Legal

An African-American youth at a "colored" drinking fountain on a courthouse lawn in Halifax, North Carolina, 1938 The Supreme Court of the United States held in the Civil Rights Cases 109 US 3 (1883) that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give the federal government the power to outlaw private discrimination, and then held in Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896) that Jim Crow laws were constitutional as long as they allowed for "separate but equal" facilities. In the years that followed, the court made this "separate but equal" requirement a hollow phrase by upholding discriminatory laws in the face of evidence of profound inequalities in practice.

Political Within each house of Congress Northern Democrats gave the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more support than did Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats more support than Southern Republicans. Amongst members of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented congressional districts in the South, more Democrats (seven out of 94 or roughly seven percent) than Republicans (none out of 10) voted for the Act. Of Northern Democrats in the House, 145 (out of 154 or 94 percent) voted for the Act compared with 138 (out of 162 or 85 percent) Northern Republicans. All (100 percent) of the 10 Southern Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted against the Act as did most (20 or 95 percent of 21) Southern Democrats. This pattern of greater support for civil rights coming from Democrats than from Republicans also shows among Northerners: 98 percent (45 out of 46) of Northern Democrats but only 84 percent (27 out of 32) of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Edits

King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.

Vote totals[edit] Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%). Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%). The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%). The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%) Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%) Cloture in the Senate:[20]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%) The Senate version:[19]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%) Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%) Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

The Legacy section on Politics attempts to present one party has not supporting despite the clear overwhelming support (80+% for Repulblican vs 63% by DNC). It is an unfair and political recap of voting intended to distract from the facts that without overwhelming support of Civil Rights (starting with Lincoln, to the acts of 1866, continuing with Charles Sumner in 1870's thru 1964) Act the author is intending to credit the Democrat party with being the party that has led the fight on Civil Rights. Cennetig (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

What edit are you requesting to this template?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Discrimination sidebar}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. This request appears to relate to the article about the Jim Crow laws - Arjayay (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you figured that out.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Countermeasures section.

I think the countermeasures section should be removed or rephrased. Technically both Affrirmative Action as well as Zionism could go under that umbrella but many would argue that both these could be racist in their own way. Im of the opinion that both should be put in a "related" section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Added an update to address this issue and hopefully make the solutions presented more nuanced and diverse. I agree that the countermeasures section is biased as it assumes a heterogeneous environment such as the United States rather than a homogenous environment such as Japan or similar.--Studio7manga (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Was that you editing the main template as an IP making the same edit?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ethnopluralism

This is not plausibly a countermeasure to discrimination. Make a case.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah so this must be the much talked about "neutrality policy" of Wikipedia manifesting itself. Very well, allow me:

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence "Our analysis indicates that both administrative and natural barriers can play a significant role in mitigating conflict between religious and linguistic groups." -page 12

BBC - Does diversity make us unhappy? "Research by the Home Office suggests that the more ethnically diverse an area is, the less people are likely to trust each other." This finding is echoed echoed in a more famous study by Putman below.

E Pluribus Unum Despite his best efforts to massage his own data, largely with his own unsupported opinions, Robert Putnam is forced to conclude that increased diversity is associated with decreased trust in neighbors and decreased social engagement, "It is sadly true in the United States that poverty, crime and diversity are themselves intercorrelated, but Table 3 shows that even comparing two equally poor (or equally rich), equally crime-ridden (or equally safe) neighbourhoods, greater ethnic diversity is associated with less trust in neighbours."

Borders: Cause of Conflict or Catalyst for Peace? What kind of borders promote conflict and what kind of borders promote cooperation? From the abstract, emphasis added by myself, "The answers present some conditions as to obstacles to peace, such as on the one hand countries with open frontiers without natural delimitating lines, disputed lines of demarcation, and arbitrarily dictated borders by outside dominating powers without consultation of the population. On the other hand borders can offer an opportunity for cooperation if they coincide with the principle of self-determination, if state borders reinforce identity of a population, or if political borders correspond with ethnical, religious or cultural groups."

More Borders, Less Conflict? Partition as a Solution to Ethnic Civil Wars Another article arguing in favor of redrawing state boundaries along ethnic lines to reduce conflict.

These articles clearly make the case that creating administrative districts along ethnic, cultural, religious, and identitarian, lines is a legitimate solution to group conflict with real world examples of Switzerland, the Balkans, the former Czechoslovakia, South Sudan, etc.

From the article on ethnopluralism: "Cultural differentialism" is the view that cultures are clearly bound entities with a specific geographical location. From this perspective, global cultural diversity takes the form of cultural mosaic with a multiplicity of diverse cultures clearly delimited and with strict boundaries between them.[1]

In addition to ethnopluralism, I'm also going to include self-determination in the countermeasures list as the two topics are related and the articles I've provided could be said to support this position as well. I also note that much of this research is directly contradictory to the countermeasure of multiculturalism (itself not an uncontroversial topic as recent political and scientific developments have demonstrated), which was allowed to sail through unchallenged by the editing staff.--Studio7manga (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

How is "is a legitimate solution to group conflict" a countermeasure to discrimination? It seems as if it's a countermeasure to group conflict. Group conflict != discrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like wordplay to me. From the template, Discrimination:Manifestations: Cultural Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide, Pogrom, Religious persecution. It's interesting to note that in all these examples there are at least two groups being rather nasty to each other. Let's look in depth at a real world example which involves all of these manifestations.

The Greeks under Ottoman subjugation experienced all manner of oppression, including the manifestations of discrimination mentioned earlier. From Greeks in Turkey "The outbreak of the Greek War of Independence in March 1821 was met by mass executions, pogrom-style attacks, the destruction of churches, and looting of Greek properties throughout the Empire." one example of many such acts which occurred throughout the history of the empire, eventually it would culminate in the Greek genocide. The solution was found in the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey which homogenized the two nations along religious and ethnic lines and formed well defined borders between the two people. After which the relations between the two peoples improved to such an extent where now their respective countries are allied under NATO.

I could also add the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, which follows a similar logic of a dominant group dictating the affairs of various marginal groups, and fell almost exclusively along ethnic lines. I don't think I really need to go into Soviet discriminatory policies, pretty much everyone knows about them, fancy some rock breaking comrade? Studio7manga (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Cronyism???

How is this a form of discrimination? Is it political corruption? Yes. Is it unfair? Yes. Can it lead to discrimination? Yes. But is it in and of itself discrimination? I don't think so. I am open to others' opinions on the topic. Gstridsigne (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a few other points.

• One, no where on the page for Cronyism is it referred to discrimination against a certain party. It is a preferential treatment to friends.
• Two, if cronyism is discrimination, then all methods of exclusion are "discrimination," and the word loses its negative connotations, and is replaced by a more neutral one. If cronyism is discrimination, then so is meritocracy, hiring a qualified candidate for a position, and even voting for a candidate of your choice in a general election.
• Three, cronyism doesn't "fit" among the other forms of discrimination listed. All of the other forms listed are forms that people are discriminated "against" unjustly or unfairly for their membership in a certain group. Cronyism is preferential treatment towards friends. Heterosexism is preferential treatment to those who are heterosexuals AND treatment of homosexuals in a way that assumes or assigns heterosexuality to them. In heterosexism, homosexuals are excluded because of their group membership. In cronyism, friends are INCLUDED because of their group membership. Gstridsigne (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination isn't always about exclusion and it isn't necessarily 'bad'. Cronyism is a form of positive discrimination. Using quotas for female employees is another form of positive discrimination. Perhaps Cronyism does not fit into the section where it is - maybe there could be sub section for positive discrimination.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the term discrimination loses all meaning. If discrimination includes preferential treatment, then Voting becomes discrimination. If discrimination is just a synonym for judgement, then why does it have its own template? Gstridsigne (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Genital Mutilation

Would it be appropriate to include forced Genital mutilation in manifestations? It has been used for centuries to denote class and even third gender. It is a manifestation of sexism, homophobia/binarism, and classism. Slut-shaming and compulsory sterilization are listed, but it would seem that genital mutilation would also fit into a type of manifestation of discrimination. Not always, but most certainly often. Does anyone else agree? Gstridsigne (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it could be seen as discrimination. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add it then. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion or removal of Antisemitism, Anti-Masonry and Islamophobia

@Gstridsigne and Rainbowofpeace: What are the arguments for the inclusion or removal of Antisemitism, Anti-Masonry and Islamophobia. They are forms of discrimination, but we do not want the side-bar not just to become a massive list. Perhaps a place on the Template:Discrimination nav box would be more appropriate, or a religion sub section? The fact that something features on another sidebar or nav box (such as Template:Status_of_religious_freedom or Template:Religious_persecution ) does not exclude it from inclusion on another. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The main antisemitism article is on the discrimination sidebar. racial antisemitism is in the ethnic discrimination sub-template and religious antisemitism and anti-Judaism are in the religious persecution sub-template. As for Anti-Masonry, Freemasonry is not (nor has it ever been) defined as a religion by its members. It is a fraternal group. The reason why anti-masonry is important is actually because of events like the holocaust which targeted freemasonry. Finally Islamophobia should not be included because it opens up a slippery slope. There is a reason why the sub-templates were created. If we were as to add Islamophobia what would stop us from adding the articles about discrimination against Atheists, or Bahais, Christians or Hindus? Re-merging all the articles from these two templates into the discrimination template would make it huge.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia is quite ubiquitous, especially in the United States and Europe. People of assumed Islamic heritage are often harassed, avoided, and refused service. Because this form of discrimination extends beyond religious persecution, it seems appropriate to include it on the discrimination sidebar. Antisemitism is listed in FOUR locations. That seems excessive, honestly. Especially since the overly specific forms are not easily distinguishable since it includes discrimination against an ethnoreligous group and not just a religious or ethnic group, even though their ethnic and religious origins overlap greatly. Islamophobia has this same overlap. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are quite similar actually. As for Free-masonry not being a religion, it is often categorized as a "quasi-religion," meaning that their members display characteristics of religion: ritual, prayer, sacred texts, and fellowship are all necessary aspects of their institution. They also mandate that all members have a belief in a Divine being (though, they often do not mandate to which Deity they must adhere). In this sense, they are more of a religion than Buddhism, Shintoism, and Taoism. So, if Islamophobia doesn't belong in the discrimination sidebar, then neither do these two forms of religious/ethnic discrimination. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I believe BOTH Antisemitism and Islamophobia should be included on the discrimination sidebar. Many people are discriminated against because they LOOK Muslim, even if they are not. Many Persians who immigrated to the United States as refugees actually practice Zoroastrianism, but because they appear to be Muslim, others still discriminate against them. Very few forms of discrimination include this component (the notable exception being Homophobia, when someone is assumed to be homosexual because they display certain characteristics, but they are in fact heterosexual). Islamophobia is extended towards people of Middle Eastern, Northern African, Turkish, and South Asian descent. Some Hindus are discriminated against because they are assumed to be Muslim. Due to the very incendiary hatred and fear of people of Islamic faith and Middle Eastern heritage, it seems appropriate to include Islamophobia on the discrimination sidebar (along with Antisemitism) since both Antisemitism and Islamophobia are similar in the sense that they both are discrimination against both a religious and ethnic group. But again, if Islamophobia doesn't belong, then neither does Antisemitism. And Free-masonry IS a religion. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

General antisemitism is included in the main discrimination template however the specific forms of antisemitism are examined in the sub-templates. The only way you are going to convince me to bring Islamophobia back in when it is clearly a form of religious discrimination (in spite of the racial implications added by perpetrators of Islamophobia) is to merge all three templates back together.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree. Islamophobia is not clearly a form of religious discrimination BECAUSE it has racial/ethnic implications as well (as you have admitted). Islamophobia and Anti-Arab sentiments overlap greatly, and because of that, it should be included. Since many in the Arab world are assumed to be Muslim (even if some of them are Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Scientific Atheist, or Jew) it becomes, much like Antisemitism, an ethnoreligious discrimination. To many in the Judeo-Christian world, Arab=Muslim and Muslim=Arab. Just like there are some people of Jewish descent who are not Jews and some people of non-Jewish descent who are Jews, there are some Arabs who are not Muslim and some Muslims who are not Arab. There is a similar intersection of identities among Hindus and people of Asiatic Indian descent. However, though discrimination of Hindus and people of Asiatic Indian descent exists, it is not as pernicious and prevalent as Islamophobia. I hope that there is a third party who will be break the tie, so to speak. Another argument for inclusion is that people would expect it to be listed there. If someone was researching discrimination, and used the discrimination sidebar as a guide, they would be confused if Islamophobia was not present. Gstridsigne (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument seems to be not whether Islamophobia is a form of discrimination, but rather what type and whether it is significant enough to include in the main sidebar. I feel that it is, but why not add another sub section for Religious discrimination? This way more pages can be linked without it getting too clustered. It might be worth have a request for comments as template talk pages don't get much traffic. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to reinfuse the three templates I could see that however I must say that if we don't do that and we add Islamophobia to the specific forms whats to keep someone from adding any other form of religious discrimination. There is a reason why the other templates were created in the first place.-206.188.36.124 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There simply is no form of labeling that can be considered NPOV when it involves Wikipedia:LABELS#Contentious_labels as mentioned above. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Arguments for and against the use of the terms mentioned above tell us they can never be neutral. We should avoid their use like the plague. Atsme☯^Consult 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to tell them what Bill Maher thinks? Maybe you can explain to them how there actually are Muslim Terrorists out there and that proves that Islamophobia does not exist. You know, like you did here, Atsme.

And yes, everyone else, this does seem to be a complex bag. It seems above there are two positions. One, was removed because it was confusing. Two, if should be included because it could be confusing to people researching discrimination who notice its absence. An RFC sounds like a very good idea.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, I do not believe the discussion is about the use of the word Islamophobia or its status as a form of discrimination. I believe that has been established and accepted by the community. What is being discussed is where amongst the various templates should it be included.

• I am asserting that since Islamophobia is ubiquitous, pernicious, and applied to an extremely wide group of people, it should be included on the general discrimination templates. Also, I feel if someone was cycling through pages on discrimination, they would be confused as to why Islamophobia was excluded but Antisemitism was included, since they are so similar. I compared Islamophobia to Antisemitism to show that Islamophobia is discrimination against an ethnoreligious group, since Islamophobia is often extended and generalized to include anyone of Middle Eastern Descent (among others). I also pointed out that Antisemitism is included on all four templates.

• Rainbowofpeace is asserting that Islamophobia is only discrimination against members of a religious group and of the religion in and of itself. They believe it should only be included amongst the religious persecution template. Also, the entire reason that these templates were separated was to avoid a very large general discrimination template. In addition to this, they assert that the reason for the inclusion of Antisemitism is because it is discrimination against an ethnoreligious group.

• Lastly, to address Atsme's concerns about original research and citations, must we include a citation explicitly naming each form of discrimination? I was under the impression that Templates typically do not include citations (especially since it seems to clutter an already cluttered template). This could be addressed on the actual page, not the template. If the page calls it discrimination, hatred, fear, or some other form of disfavor, it would seem appropriate to include it amongst the templates. Thus, cronyism, which I have expressed my contentions against it already, would not be included.

Are there any other points that should be made? Gstridsigne (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

One more point. I think what ever is decided should be consistent. I avoided an edit war on this. Currently, Anti-Masonry and Antisemitism are listed, but Islamophobia is not. My point is, if Islamophobia does not belong on this template, then neither do Anti-Masonry and Antisemitism. I was not saying that they were unimportant, as Rainbowofpeace insinuated, but only that they were also forms of religious discrimination, and thus did not belong on this template per the guidelines agreed upon by the community. I am very well aware that Masons and Jews were targeted for extermination by the holocaust. I am also aware that, due primarily to their portrayal in popular media, Anti-masonry still exists today. Gstridsigne (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems you both are asking for consistency really.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gstridsigne, my response actually addressed the use of templates (navboxes, infoboxes) in the sidebar of an article, particularly those associated with "part of a series on". I apologize if I inadvertently created confusion, or misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. I have no dispute over editors using the subject words in a reliably sourced article that is properly weighted. Unfortunately, the latter isn't always the case, but that's a different discussion. Example - the Islamophobia template has been added to the sidebar of some articles that contain information in opposition to Islamic terrorism because there are different perspectives about what constitutes "terrorism". Those articles get tagged with an Islamophobia template in the sidebar which includes links to articles that aren't even related. How many articles with such discriminatory sidebar templates have actually achieved GA or FA status? The entire argument about the discrimination sidebar issue is subjective depending on what side of the isle one stands. Debate on the Talk pages of numerous articles confirm that potential problems arise when a discriminatory sidebar (navbox or infobox) is included because the sidebar templates inherently ignore WP guidelines/policies for WP:NPOV, and/or WP:NOR in an effort to advance a particular cause. It is undeniably so. Editors who add such templates are attempting to further a cause (from their POV), be it for or against something, and it doesn't matter whether it's antisemitic, anti-Masonic, Islamophobic, or a reverse POV. The sidebar wipes out all aspects of neutrality regardless of what side you're on. It isn't our job as editors to add to an article information we already know is pernicious, discriminatory, or pushes a particular POV. Again...'Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Atsme☯^Consult 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

^TL;DR I don't like it.

Atsme is here because the Islamophobia template contains Investigative Project on Terrorism and the template is also on that article. An RFC was opened for that issue. She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire. She took it to BLPN and ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg everyone's pardon, but Serialjoepsycho's statement, She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire, is ludicrous. Such behavior is disruptive, and not helping this discussion. This isn't the first time I've had to deal with his disruptive behavior. He is obviously not here in good faith considering his focus has been on maligning and taunting me, not trying to provide constructive input to this discussion. Out of courtesy to others in this discussion, I will simply ignore him.

Gstridsigne, regarding the current topic, has there ever been, or is there even a way to acquire traffic stats to see how much traffic the links on the templates or navboxes are generating in an effort to let us know if the sidebars are actually serving a benefit to readers? Atsme☯^Consult 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's ludacris and true. And there's proof. It seems to fit in with her borderline racist claim that muslim terrorism is proof that Islamophobia doesn't exist. If you are interested in the evidence just ask. Or hell just watch as she circles thru arguments and schemes to get rid of the Islamophobia template. See above, asking about the usage numbers.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies for the above.

I noticed that counterjihad is still on the template. That being a manifestation of Islamophobia it seems off keeping it but removing Islamophobia. They may be others as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Add the jizya tax to the series and portal on discrimination

I believe that we should add jizya to the series and portal on discrimination because the jizya tax discriminated against non-muslim minorities by taxing them while the islamic majority that dominated them didn't have to pay the tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyb9999 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remove

Remove Anti-capitalism, as it is not a form of discrimination.2601:640:4080:5960:D528:3270:B717:97F9 (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Pedophobia?

Is "pedophobia" really a kind of discrimination or a part of the social justice movement?

I also noticed that anti-christianity and islamophobia were not in the list. The list itself doesn't seem neutral to me. - Avatar⁹ⁿ 22:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Add these three?

Add Discrimination against atheists, Religious discrimination against Neopagans and Christian privilege? White Privilege and Male Privilege are already added, and since this is about discrimination, Discrimination against atheists, and Religious discrimination against Neopagans would fit perfectly, considering that the term "Discrimination" is are in them. Also, since discrimination also covers privileges, as stated previously, Christian privilege should also be added as well.

Mateoski06 (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, as the first linked article contains "Atheists ineligible to hold office [in seven U.S. states]". @Mateoski06: you might want to sign your post above. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Originally this template was much larger. Forms of specific ethnic and religious discrimination got their own template to make this template smaller. Please see Template:Religious persecution and Template:Anti-cultural sentiment for specific forms of religious and ethnic discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace, antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the discrimination template. Mateoski06 (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism and Islamophobia are on the list but can be removed. Listen I see no problem with Christian privilege being on the template. Now as for your next question. If we add Discrimination against atheists or Religious discrimination against Neopagans where should we draw the line? If you think we should add every form of religious and ethnic discrimination back into the main discrimination template. I would agree with you but it was split because other editors thought it was too large? However I would also like to say certain things have changed since then. Most sections of the template are collapsible. So I propose that under specific forms we add ethnic forms and under that religious forms and fuse the templates back into one. What do other editors think?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so then we'll remove Islamophobia and Antisemitism from the list and add Christian privilege. Mateoski06 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add Christian privilege to the sidebar. Please undo your edit or I will take the liberty of doing that for you. Eliko007 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

There is an extra space between the word "sex" and the forward slash ( / ). Currently says this: Sex /Gender Should display this: Sex / Gender

Edit: When formatted my message looks different unless it is in the editing template.

216.169.239.29 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done - and I removed the capital G - to match the other entries with a / - Arjayay (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

For 'Countermeasures' in the discrimination sidebar I think 'Feminism' should be added as it is a movement that for over a century now, has been tackling discrimination faced by women. 110.20.134.15 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment That would need consensus, but as the template already includes Masculism I cannot see that there should be any objection - Leave it a few days for other's opinions - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 05:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Meat eating as discrimination

Why is Meat Eating listed under Manifestations of Discrimination? After a quick glance at the linked article (Meat), I don't see anything that would warrant its inclusion. 2606:A000:C8C4:4F00:A161:95F5:F4E2:2138 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add meat eating, but meat eating is clearly a manifestation of speciesism, which is listed in the "General forms" section of this template. Meat eaters are speciesists who discriminate against nonhuman animals who have a level of sentience comparable to that of human animals: See Sentience § Animal welfare, rights, and sentience. Biogeographist (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I will change the link to Meat eating in this template to a piped link to Ethics of eating meat to address the criticism above that the article on meat is of unclear relevance. Also, it is better that links in navboxes not be redirects (as the unpiped link meat eating is), as explained at WP:Redirect § Bypass redirects in navigational templates. Biogeographist (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This remains contended, including in the ethical literature—some maintain that there are non-arbitrary reasons for this differential treatment of nonhumans. (Peter Singer, for example, has argued that eating humanely raised and painlessly slaughtered chickens need not be an instance of speciesism.) However, consensus on this page seems to be for a broad criterion for inclusion, something like "topics considered relevant to debates about discrimination" (e.g. section above on feminism), so ethics of eating meat seems adequately justified. FourViolas (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@FourViolas: Thanks for the clarification. Instead of saying "meat eating is clearly a manifestation of speciesism" as I said in my comment above, I should have said something like: "the logic here seems to be that meat eating is a manifestation of speciesism". As you noted, the criteria for inclusion seems to be very broad for this template; if the inclusion criteria were narrower then it would be easier to make a case for excluding meat eating, but given the broad inclusion criteria, if speciesism is included then one would have to present a better argument than has yet been presented for excluding meat eating as a (at least potential) manifestation of speciesism. A counterpoint to Peter Singer's argument cited above is Mylan Engel's argument: Engel Jr., Mylan (2000). "The immorality of eating meat". In Pojman, Louis P. (ed.). The moral life: an introductory reader in ethics and literature. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 856–890. ISBN 0195128443. OCLC 40105675. Biogeographist (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Peter Singer bases his arguments primarily on utilitarianism principle. The works of philosophers like Tom Regan, Gary L. Francione, and others are more scholarly when it comes to ethical arguments against speciesism (to talk about the ethics of eating meat) and more ethical stance on veganism. Arguing about animal rights or meat eating any less than the abolitionist theory will only question the validity of the abolition of slavery. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Eating meat is a form of animal cruelty, by discriminating against the animals and certain species of animals to be precise. It is hypocrisy to cry for one's pet dog or cat while engaging in the cruelty of devouring the cows, pigs, ducks, fishes and other animals by turning the stomach into a graveyard for the rotting carcasses. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Feminism

Feminism is included as a countermeasure. To be egalitarian and fair to men's rights, please add Masculism as a countermeasure. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pedophobia

I would like to have "Pedophobia" removed from the sidebar. As I have pedophobia, I find its categorisation herein as grossly insulting and discriminatory toward myself and others who suffer from a debilitating social disorder. 120.136.5.96 (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I see no good reason to remove "Pedophobia" from the template given the content of the article, which seems relevant to the topic of discrimination. I recommend that you discuss this issue at Talk:Fear of children first, and try to gain consensus for a complete rewrite of the article, which is what would seem to be necessary to make the article irrelevant to this template. Biogeographist (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of that particular page, you'll see that the point of the article being poorly written (especially the sections on discrimination) has already been raised by another user in 2010 with no response whatsoever. This is an exceptional case which should really not require a rewrite consensus. It more appropriate to remove the offending material until such time that a version can be written with a more neutral point of view that discusses the opinion of pedophobia being discriminatory, as opposed to pedophobia being axiomatically discriminatory. In short, an opinion should not be presented as factual, no matter how popular. Especially if the opinion is offensive. 120.136.5.96 (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, the fact that something is objectionable or offensive‍ to someone is not sufficient ground for the removal of content. Inclusion of "Pedophobia" in this template seems justified based on the current state of that article. When the article changes substantially so that it is no longer relevant to this template, then it should be removed from the template and vice versa. Biogeographist (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And per WP:SIDEBAR, "If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template"—so this should be discussed at Talk:Fear of children anyway, as I said above. Biogeographist (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

C' monUser:Biogeographist that's a wayyyy overstretch to use NOTCENSORED a protection for material which is poorly written so on. Sheesh. Not all material which might offend somebody must automatically be included here for that reason, and NOTCENSORED doesn't say that. Anyway, guy has a point, so let's start with that article, then we can return to the question of the list here. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said anything that defended the current content of that article or that implied that the article could not be improved; indeed, my use of the phrase "When the article changes substantially" implies that the article will be improved. My reference to WP:NOTCENSORED relates to the complainant's attempt to justify removing the link because the complainant considered the link "grossly insulting" and "offending", which is exactly the kind of justification that WP:NOTCENSORED addresses. If discussion at Talk:Fear of children concludes that the link should not be included in this template, then remove the link; there's no need to return here to discuss it. Biogeographist (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not at all how I justified removal. I was pointing out the failure of the article in its current form, to draw distinction between the two cases; implying that if I or anyone else for that matter has an irrational fear of children, then they must also by extension have a discriminatory hatred for children, which is patently untrue. It is that implication which is offensive. In addition, I have yet to find respectable source that supports the discriminatory/hate definition of pedophobia as being factual as opposed to a popular missappropriation by social politicians. Hence, I don't believe that it is appropriate to include it in the sidebar. 120.136.5.96 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's a different argument. The solution I proposed at Talk:Fear of children is to split the article; then the relevant article can be linked here instead of the irrelevant one. If you look back at your original comment here, your argument was very different: I would like to have "Pedophobia" removed from the sidebar. As I have pedophobia, I find its categorisation herein as grossly insulting and discriminatory toward myself and others who suffer from a debilitating social disorder. Regarding definitions of "pedophobia", they seem to be scarce and quite diverse in the literature; here's a reliable source that associates the word with "policies and practices that are not respectful of children or childhood": Dudley-Marling, Curt; Jackson, Janice; Stevens, Lisa Patel (June 2006). "Disrespecting childhood". Phi Delta Kappan. 87 (10): 748–755. doi:10.1177/003172170608701009. JSTOR 20442151. Biogeographist (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I should correct my previous post - I did not know that there were two cases before now, because of the lack of distinction. I was in fact pointing out the implication as stated above.

In any case, that seems like a good source, but it would be better to have a secondary source. Despite journal articles being peer reviewed, there is still a lot that they can get away with when it comes to creative interpretation. Afterall, sociology is not an exact science like chemistry is.

That sounds like a good solution (to have the relevant article linked to the sidebar). 120.136.5.96 (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Despite journal articles being peer reviewed, there is still a lot that they can get away with: I think I am going to frame this sentence and hang it on my wall. Biogeographist (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Not all pages linked in this template have the template on the page

I just noticed that at least a few, and perhaps more, of the pages linked in this template do not have the template on the linked page, as they should per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. For example, the first link under "Manifestations", Animal cruelty, does not have the template on the target page. (By the way, Animal cruelty is a redirect, and should be piped as [[Cruelty to animals|Animal cruelty]] per WP:Redirect § Bypass redirects in navigational templates.) Would someone be willing to review the pages linked in this template (and the alternate template with the same content, Template:Discrimination) and insert one of the two templates (Template:Discrimination sidebar or Template:Discrimination) on all of the pages that lack the template? Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Biogeographist. Will do. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Will do, too. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Societal racism appears to have been missed, for example. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:801E:5868:759C:F4D4 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Structural violence

Suggest linking structural violence in related topics section. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:801E:5868:759C:F4D4 (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

2601:204:C201:C1E0:60C1:4094:37A0:70F (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

With regard to religious persecution, Sikhism surely should also be grnated pro rata representation. The entry, however, si not styled in the form of 'persecution,' rather History of Sikhism.

I request the inclusion of the aforementioned article.

 Not done: Persecution of Sikhs is a redirect to a subsection Religious Persecution lacking it's own page. — KB3035583^talk 01:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

More region neutral image

Jim Crow laws currently uses this template. It's a little confusing having a South African apartheid sign being the first image on the Jim Crow laws page. Perhaps we can pick an image which is more "region neutral" for this template? NickCT (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

More region neutral image

Jim Crow laws currently uses this template. It's a little confusing having a South African apartheid sign being the first image on the Jim Crow laws page. Perhaps we can pick an image which is more "region neutral" for this template? NickCT (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

To remove contents related to animal rights ideals in this sidebar.

Dogs, rabbits, bulls, cows, chickens, horses and other isn't humans and the Wikipedia doesn't is an leftist ideolodical site, the term discrimination is related with the human aspects, not with natural resources and environmental aspects. 201.52.227.193 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

Speciesism is one of the many forms of discrimination, and it's the discrimination against non-human species. Saying they are not humans and removing them from the topic of discrimination is a very act of speciesism. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Medicine-Related

Is there a term we can coin for discrimination against people who are taking or consuming prescription medicine that actually cure disabilities of any kind? --Personisgaming (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding BLM to 'Countermeasures'

I think that the Black Lives Matter movement can be put in 'Countermeasures,' right? I mean, it can be classified as a countermeasure, considering how powerful it is. What are your thoughts? GeraldWL 14:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The BLM movement is indeed a movement against discrimination, albeit to a specific portion of it. I feel it should be included. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Discrimination includes all forms of discrimination, human or non-human

See the discussion on this topic at the talk page of the alternate template, Template talk:Discrimination § Discrimination includes all forms of discrimination, human or non-human. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Very strange bias

It's quite biased that this template seems to push the views that anything connected with eating animals or raising animals as food is inherently evil, while any opposition to eating animals is inherently virtuous. It's not only propagandistic, but bizarre. AnonMoos (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Here a several definitions of discrimination (I simply copied them from the top Google results):

1. Wikipedia: Discrimination is the act of making distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.
2. Amnesty International: Discrimination occurs when a person is unable to enjoy his or her human rights or other legal rights on an equal basis with others because of an unjustified distinction made in policy, law or treatment.
3. American Psychological Association: Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age or sexual orientation.
4. Cambridge Dictionary: the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated
5. UK government: It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age; gender reassignment; being married or in a civil partnership; being pregnant or on maternity leave; disability; race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation
6. The CDC lists the following types of discrimination: Age Discrimination; Disability Discrimination; Sexual Orientation; Status as a Parent; Religious Discrimination; National Origin; Pregnancy; Sexual Harassment; Race, Color, and Sex; Reprisal / Retaliation
7. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: as a reasonable first approximation, we can say that discrimination consists of acts, practices, or policies that impose a relative disadvantage on persons based on their membership in a salient social group.

None of them mention animals or species. -- Chrisahn (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed in Template talk:Discrimination § Discrimination includes all forms of discrimination, human or non-human. Please post your views there. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "Reverse racism"

Since racism is a form of discrimination over one's race, there could not be no "reverse" racism. I think the article "Reverse racism" itself is anti-white people discrimination, because it legitimizes the theses racism being a form of discrimination against non-white people by white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.146.95 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans and First Nations of Canada

@TenorTwelve: and other editors interesting in the topic of Discrimination:

The addition of this sidebar template to several articles within the topic of Native American mascots has one problem: Native Americans are generally absent from the topic of Discrimination. There is hidden within the "Manifestations" list a link to the main mascot article but called "Tribal caricature mascots", a terminology used nowhere else. Native Americans might be added to the list of Ethnic/national groups, but this would highlight the absence of other indigenous peoples who have become invisible in two contexts; not recognized as having a unique status either by the majority populations that discriminate against them nor as being a distinct group with their own issues by those opposing such discrimination.

This template appears to have a general problem regarding categorization, which indicates that it needs the attention of an expert on the topic, which I do not consider myself to be. As a general expert in the social sciences I think of racism, discrimination, and prejudice as having different meanings which overlap, but are not conceptually identical. In particular the lingering animosity between members of nation-states that have a history of conflict are different than the continued discrimination against ethnic groups within one nation having a history of colonialism. For example, there is a link to the article regarding anti-Australian attitudes among Indonesians, yet I see no link to an article regarding the indigenous people of Australia.

It is disappointing for me to see that editors have been spending time having a completely off-topic discussion regarding the inclusion of non-humans within this topic while the inclusion of indigenous peoples goes unaddressed.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Thanks for asking about Indigenous Peoples. In response to your last sentence: There was a discussion about speciesism here because there was an advocate for its inclusion, which was opposed, and that opposition became an edit war, which led to a discussion here. That's just the way it goes with controversy on Wikipedia; it doesn't mean that animals are more important here than Indigenous Peoples, only that animals were controversial at some point in time. In contrast, I don't see anything controversial about adding discrimination against Indigenous Peoples to this template.

I suspect the reason why Indigenous Peoples are not more prominent in this template is due to a lack of article-level coverage of discrimination against them. Per WP:NAVBOX, navigation templates are for links between articles. In contrast, for example, the following are sections, not articles:

• Indigenous peoples § Racism and discrimination
• Contemporary Native American issues in the United States § Societal discrimination and racism

However, Stereotypes of indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States is a relevant article, so I added it to the ethnic/national section. If you find other relevant articles, please add them. Biogeographist (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catalanism and Anti-Chilean sentiment

@Lute88: I removed the links to these two articles because neither of them covers discrimination, at least not in the sense of the excellent list given by Chrisahn above. Also, please remember that any changes made to this template should also be made to Template:Discrimination which contains the navbar corresponding to this sidebar. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catalan discrimination has a long history.--Aristophile (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that it has a long history, and I personally know a very nice elderly Catalan who has suffered discrimination during Franco's dictatorship. But the article doesn't mention it. If the article could be improved, there would be no problem linking it. What about the article on Anti-Chilean sentiment ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear that the definition of discrimination limits it to practices within a nation that limits the rights of its own citizens based upon race, gender, national origin, or ethnicity. These practices may either be behaviors of private citizens or official actions of the government. The negative sentiments of the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another nation may have negative impacts, but it is not discrimination. Thus, anti-Catalan sentiments are likely discriminatory within Spain, but the Anti-Chilean sentiments among neighboring nation-states currently described in that article is not discrimination. There would have to be a significant community of Chileans within these other countries for the possibility of discrimination to exist.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I now added some text about discrimination to Anti-Catalanism, so IMHO the problem has been solved. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-American sentiment

I just want a clear, well defined example how hating or discrimination based on ethnicity or country of origin wouldn’t apply to Anti-American sentiment. Is discrimination and hate not applicable to Americans? It seems ridiculous to try and say it doesn’t apply, but I’d love to hear why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonSocMan (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Speciesism merits inclusion in related topics.

So there have been people who object to Speciesism going under "General forms" for being a minority view, I've explained that it's almost true by definition that many forms of discrimination will have been and indeed still are considered "minority views," but fair enough. Now, how is speciesism not even a related topic when it is discussed in the main article for discrimination itself?

First off, there is plenty of verification that though thinking Speciesism is a form of discrimination is a minority view, it is not "fringe," and claiming that it is so is just pushing an agenda using a very loaded term. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination#Theories_and_philosophy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#Spread_of_the_idea. The latter shows how the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is literally "discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority." Is the OED now a fringe publication? How about Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciesism. "Definition of speciesism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on species especially: discrimination against animals." Is Merriam-Webster now a fringe publication too? This is getting ridiculous. For those who disagree, please stop patronizingly reverting good-faith edits by pretending to be unbiased and only upholding the policies when you clearly are not, I have shown plenty of verification and you have none.

Second of all, even if it was a fringe view, it would still be a "related" topic. Whether or not a topic is "fringe" has no bearing on whether or not it is "related" to another topic. Also are you really going to tell me that Oikophobia or Allophilia merit inclusion because they are totally well known concepts? I haven't even heard of those terms before today and a simple Google ngram seach (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Speciesism%2CAllophilia%2COikophobia&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSpeciesism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAllophilia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COikophobia%3B%2Cc0) shows that speciesism is astronomically more recognized than those two. Again this is ridiculous.

After some digging, it seems speciesism has been discussed an incredible amount already in relation to discrimination. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Discrimination, 4 out of the 13 topics is about speciesism, a huge plurality of the topics discussed. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discrimination#Adding_Species_section there is another massive section. Evidently it is at the very least RELATED to the topic. Saying that it is not would actually be insidiously and purposefully sticking one's head in the sand.

Yrw.nova (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see that you'd moved Speciesism to "Related topics", which I agree is fine. A few things for future reference:

1) Please remember to assume good faith. Despite how you may feel, accusing others of pretending to be unbiased or calling the process ridiculous is really just projecting something in your imagination out into the world. When trying to edit Wikipedia, that kind of projection will get in your way every time. Best to keep a cool head and stick to the facts. And remember that everyone makes mistakes.

2) I get that dictionaries might seem like good references, but in fact we do not consider them a particularly authoritative kind of source. See the essay Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. Much preferred are statements by professional scholarly organizations like this one from the American Psychological Association: Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age or sexual orientation.[2] Also useful are internationally respected organizations like Amnesty International which specialize in the category of phenomena under discussion: Discrimination occurs when a person is unable to enjoy his or her human rights or other legal rights on an equal basis with others because of an unjustified distinction made in policy, law or treatment.[3]

3) Fringe topics can indeed be notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but that's a separate issue from whether a given topic belongs within a given category. Note also that sources may be more or less reliable, but when we call something "fringe" we're referring to the view, not the source.

4) While Oikophobia or Allophilia may not be well know topics, there doesn't appear to be anything problematic about their inclusion because they're consistent with mainstream definitions of discrimination which focus on concepts like "people" and "human rights". The issue with speciesism, on the other hand, is that it appears to break with that mainstream understanding of the category. For this reason there would have been a burden of proof involved if you'd insisted on adding it to "General forms". But since you were willing to compromise I think our work is done here.

Generalrelative (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(1) Since our topic is discrimination, it seems more logical to look up "discrimination" in Merriam-Webster: "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"[4]. (2) The discussion you mentioned above did not lead to a species section being added to Discrimination. (3) "moral progress" is not among the policies of Wikipedia. I personally hope that moral progress is possible with the help of education and correct information, hence the importance of WP:V.

And please: Stick to the talk page guidelines (see WP:TALK). I think, being concise is very helpful, using expressions like "ridiculous" or "beyond ironic" is not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote my comment before I saw Generalrelative's. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Now that Speciesism has been included in the sidebar (under "Related topics"), I would assume that it's acceptable to re-include the sidebar in the speciesism article, unless anyone has any objections? Throughthemind (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think it's a minority view anymore to include speciesism under discrimination. Scholarly sources increasingly define speciesism as a form of discrimination. Even the scholarly bodies that define discrimination in terms of humans, such as the American Psychological Association that User:Generalrelative pointed out earlier, in their own definition to the term speciesism, say it's a discrimination against non-human animals: speciesism n. discriminatory, prejudicial, or exploitative practices against nonhuman animals, often on the basis of an assumption of human superiority. — American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasnaboy (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't agree. Regarding the use of dictionaries, Generalrelative already cautioned us. I still hold that we should not look for definitions of speciesism, but of discrimination. Please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that speciesism and antispeciesism and/or animal rights are added under Attributes and Countermeasures respectively. animal abuse could be listed as a Manifestation, rather than only being relagated to Related topics. I'm open to other suggestions for other articles that might better represent it.

The term Person (personhood) is not human specific, and the term "people" is listed a plural form thereof, and as such it can also mean other species, or alien lifeforms for that matter. In other words as a concept it's not tied to humanity but a more general sense of justice. Some, however, read the lead of Discrimination and the article in general as specific to humankind though that's subject to interpretation, and that in turn has been used as justification for excluding non-human forms of discrimination from being listed as prominently in this sidebar.

Wikipedia itself is shaping and reinforcing certain beliefs whether we like it or not, and as such the priority should be accuracy rather than saying whatever is common which the dictionary would list WP:NOT#DICT, even if the common belief is unfounded. For instance expert opinion from academia on topics within Physics would overrule the most common beliefs from laymen about what light really is. This is the case even though expert opinion is inherently fringe compared to society at large. Moral philosophers specialized within these fields are the authority, examples being Peter Singer and Tom Regan spring to mind, but I'm sure there are others, of varying beliefs.

If Discrimination and this sidebar is supposed to be about human discrimination exclusively for some reason, the titles should be changed to reflect that.

Looking forward to reading some fresh perspectives, and hopefully seeing further improved articles.

Interstates (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Anti-English & Anti-British

@Rsk6400: Cambridge Dictionary: the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated The pages on Anti-English and Anti-British sentiment is filled with examples of hostility and/or poor treatment based upon their ethnic background (being English and/or British). So I really don't follow your logic at all. Alssa1 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to talk. I agree that there are a lot of examples of hostility against the British government, British politics or (in the case of Scotland) the English dominating the UK. But I didn't find any example of poor treatment of British / English people because of their ethnic background. At least no examples that can be compared in any meaningful way with the discrimination e.g. of Blacks in the US, Jews in the Middle Ages, non-Muslims in Muslim countries, gay people around the world, ... Rsk6400 (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Rsk6400, the term "English" in "Anti-English" throughout the article refers to an ethnicity. It does not describe a government/politics. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Either you misunderstood my preceding comment or you didn't read that article. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Then yes I would need an explanation. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I have read the article. You can see very clearly in the introduction of Anti-English sentiment that it is about the English people, and not their form of government. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Discrimination sidebar/Archive 2#Anti-Catalanism and Anti-Chilean sentiment sums it up quite nicely. I support Rsk6400. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

Add Racism against African Americans to ethnic/national section. 76.174.235.156 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done part of Afrophobia. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Organization of Attributes in sidebar

Hello, I would like to move the discrimination of skin color (AKA colorism) to be grouped in with Genetics and not Race.

1. Colorism is not dependent on race to exist. It is a separate individual issue that just so happens to overlap with racism.
   • Example: We have four people: a light-skinned Indigenous European, a light-skinned Indigenous Asian, a dark-skinned Indigenous European, and a dark-skinned Indigenous Asian. The two light-skinned individuals are naturally drawn to and charasmatic to one another, while also separating themselves from their dark-skinned counterparts, despite being of the same race. They are not racist—because their interaction is proof of racial harmony—but are instead colorist.
2. Every human has a color palette; Hair color. eye color, and skin color are all arbitrary phenotypical features of people caused by genetics.

--ThunderBrine (talk; contributions; watchlist; sandbox) 00:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 Decemeber 2023

Add Social identity threat to the related topics section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stran20 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Panamitsu (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of LGBT grooming conspiracy theory in sidebar

Given this template's presence on the article, and how multiple sources on the article have noted it as a particularly prominent form of homophobia and transphobia, I do believe that LGBT grooming conspiracy theory belongs somewhere on the sidebar itself. I am not going to add it on myself however, because I would like to ask people here if they believe it belongs there first. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I do think it is appropriate so I have added it. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

About edit this template.

I think in adding about Anti-German Sentiment and/or Anti-Canadian sentiment in this sidebar.

179.98.8.143 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

If a term is red linked, there is surely no merit in adding it? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is no discrimination described in the article, it doesn't belong here. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)