Template talk:Discrimination/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Discrimination. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Anti-SMS/MMS user sentiment?
IMessage#Anti-SMS/MMS_user_sentiment, going on the news you can find tons of articles about this, from verified sources. Not a page but verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:8400:dc34:c081:5d75:1d83:4ba (talk • contribs)
Separate Discrimination based on skin tone of (Race/Ethnicity)
The most Discrimination based on skin tone made by society is made betwwe people of same ethnicity and race, in such cases of Africa, East Asia, Middle Age Europe, Victorian Era. Harry Cousins (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC).
No kid zones
@Rsk6400: Reliable sources do describe no kid zones as discrimination. I disagree with your removal here [1]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to the inclusion, but I saw that the article doesn't include this template, and an (admittedly superficial) survey of the references in the article didn't show me such sources. Would you mind adding some quotes and this template to the article ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Afterthought: I'm a teacher, and so I have absolutely no sympathy for discrimination against (parents with) children. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- This CNN source goes into the 2017 ruling about it [2]. This is a widespread phenomena where kids are banned and some areas even have "no senior" zones. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The ruling ... is not legally binding and critics say the ongoing popularity of no-kids zones highlights how hard it will be to change people’s mindsets." - If discrimination is prohibited by the constitution and there is only a non-binding ruling calling those zones "discrimination", that doesn't seem really convincing. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need something to be legally prohibited for it to count as discrimination. Excluding people based on their characteristics is generally what discrimination is about. The Washington Post article also goes into this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Discrimination#Age. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- My idea was not, that something had to be prohibited by law to be called so. My idea was that if in a state where rule-of-law works fairly well (like South Korea) discrimination is prohibited, and NKZ are not prohibited, it is doubtful that they should be called "discrimination". All in all: We need WP:RS, because WP:OR is against our guidelines. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I'm telling you that it's not OR. But I give up. Maybe someone else will understand what I mean by all this someday. I suppose my bar for inclusion in a template like this is much lower than yours. Describing no kid zones as discriminatory is common in reliable sources even if the situation is more complicated and not unanimous but that could describe other articles listed on the template as well. My understanding is that the human rights commission can't make legally binding decisions at all so I think their ruling on the matter is quite significant, especially since it mentions the constitution [3]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- My idea was not, that something had to be prohibited by law to be called so. My idea was that if in a state where rule-of-law works fairly well (like South Korea) discrimination is prohibited, and NKZ are not prohibited, it is doubtful that they should be called "discrimination". All in all: We need WP:RS, because WP:OR is against our guidelines. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The ruling ... is not legally binding and critics say the ongoing popularity of no-kids zones highlights how hard it will be to change people’s mindsets." - If discrimination is prohibited by the constitution and there is only a non-binding ruling calling those zones "discrimination", that doesn't seem really convincing. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- This CNN source goes into the 2017 ruling about it [2]. This is a widespread phenomena where kids are banned and some areas even have "no senior" zones. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Afterthought: I'm a teacher, and so I have absolutely no sympathy for discrimination against (parents with) children. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've included our disagreement at WP:3O because templates are a relatively niche area and I'd prefer a third opinion. [4] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
3O Response: Two reliable sources (CNN and Maeil Business Pulse) identify the Korean human rights authority's listing "No kid zone" as discriminative. Listing this article on the Discrimination template is not original research, as the topic is comparable to Ageism#Discrimination. See the second paragraph in that section describing results of children's responses to Children's Rights Alliance for England and the National Children's Bureau survey. Forms of discrimination need not be prohibited by law to qualify as discrimination. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Should we add an article
Should the article Triple oppression be added to the template, if so where? Considering oppression is in it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atakes Ris (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)