Portal talk:Discrimination/Selected picture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mecca Image

I have removed the Mecca image from the page for the following reason:

Firstly there is no reliable source calling it an example of discrimination. In fact the entire entry is unsourced. Secondly Mecca is a purely Islamic site. Non-Muslims neither own nor claim to own any property any business or religious site over there. Finally Mecca is meant for religious purposes only; which non-Muslims have no reason t go there in the first place.Bless sins (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with with an image from Nazi Germany where Jews were discriminated and added a source.Bless sins (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Quit making excuses for your censorship. Whether or not you think non-muslims should be allowed to go there changes nothing; it just determines that your admission of support for the action. The very fact that non-muslims are not allowed makes it discrimination. Yahel Guhan 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No reliable source calls it discrimination. What business to non-Muslims have in Mecca? Non-Muslims don't do Hajj, they don't recite the Qur'an, they don't perform the salat. Thus, non-Muslims aren't being deprived of any of their rights.Bless sins (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of movement is a right. Freedom to travel to any city in the world and enjoy the experience is a right. Only the islam holy city banns people who are not muslim from visiting. If Jews banned muslims from Jerusalem they'd be screaming discrimination. Mecca doesn't diserve special treatment. It is still discrimination. Here is a RS which considers it discrimination: [1]. Yahel Guhan 04:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Who considers it discrimination? Certainly not CNN. The anonymous people calling it that are actually defending the practice. Your Jerusalem comparison is faulty because Jerusalem is holy to Muslims as well as Jews. Yet Mecca is holy only to Muslims. Freedom of movement is right. But this right is often restricted: at international borders, the washrooms of the opposite gender, at sensitive military locations, near the residences of major political figures etc.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is another: [2] It is utterly rediculous that someone can ban another from living or visiting someplace based on religion. That is discrimination. The bathroom analogy is just rediculous. And the entire city of Mecca is not the residence of any "major political figure". Yahel Guhan 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Another anonymous source that says nothing: no info about author, no references, no explanation. Also you forgot to respond to the international border point. On the basis of country of origin nations often restrict people freedom movement. Mecca is an extremely crowded area where the Saudi government has a difficult time providing water and food to the population. Infact Saudis are banned from Mecca during Hajj season (if they have previously done the Hajj). Is Saudi Arabia discriminating against Saudis as well?
"someone can ban another from living..." Who said Muslims are allowed o live in Mecca? Only the indigenous populations allowed. Any pilgrim who stays behind, and gets caught is immediately deported. Is Saudi Arabia also discriminating against non-Meccans as well?Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The author is Freedom House. Did you even look at the page? Now you are using your personal beliefs, and theories which you probably made up to justify your point. Yahel Guhan 05:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a person who is qualified in the field. I'm also looking for some sort of article, research paper, book etc. not simply a phrase.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the source[3] that says Saudis are restricted from making Hajj for five years if they've already made one. this restriction apparently doesn't apply to non-Saudis, thus is this too discrimination?Bless sins (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is a source [4] that says Saudi Arabia makes different restrictions depending on your country of origin. Many Saudis believe that the restriction on them is an infringement of their religious rights.
Clearly the government can't satisfy everyone. It must limit Mecca to only those truly need to be there (considering the number of people have been killed). Saudi Arabia does what it does for people's safety, and to protect their lives, and you call this discrimination?Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a person who is qualified in the field. Thank you for your honesty. At least now it is clear you are trying to censor wikipedia. You are claiming it is unreliable based on your personal opinion, them you bring up irrelevant information to defend your censorship. I don't care if Saudis are allowed in the city. It doesn't matter either way. And yes, it could easily be interprited as discrimination. Saudi Arabia does what it does because it follows Sharia. Yahel Guhan 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for a person who is qualified in the field. Indeed the definition of reliable source is exactly that. When did I want to censor wikipedia? "I don't care if Saudis are allowed in the city." Then perhaps I shouldn't care if non-Muslims aren't allowed in the city? As the source says Saudi Arabia does this to save the lives of people.Bless sins (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This type of canvassing is not appropiate. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you don't know what canvassing is. Also it shows that you are following me again. I didn't mention to Itaqallah whether there was dispute. I only asked him for an opinion, not on wikipedia, not even on this dispute, but on a religious topic.Bless sins (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside question: I have heard that there is a special pilgrimage visa for visiting Mecca and Medina. In other words, a visitor, being Muslim or not, can not enter the two cities without the pilgrimage visa. Is this true? --Be happy!! (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there is the special visa, and as the above article suggests, that visa is granted to people differently based on their country of origin.Bless sins (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, are there reliable sources in this relation? If so, we can accommodate its addition but I also suggest mentioning similar historical examples of other religions' ban from others entering their sacred places (e.g. the ban on the Gentile's entering within a border of Jewish residents and the particular sensitivity towards the temple, or examples from other religions)--Be happy!! (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

One point here is that this page was meant to have 5-10 images, not be a long list. Prior to my edits, users had Mecca here as an example of discrimination, but didn't have the Holocaust! The point here is to have notable images of discrimination that have caused debate and attracted the attention of historians. Even if Yahel provides a source for discrimination (which he has yet to do) this image will hardly make top 1000 examples of discrimination. If Yahel is looking examples of religous discrimination why not try to get images from antisemitism, Islamophobia or anti-Christian sentiment?Bless sins (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By a reliable source I meant a source explaining its significance as well of course. --Be happy!! (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Seems to be a pretty clear example of discrimination to me. I don't think you need a secondary source to verify that, it's a dictionary definition. Treating some groups of people in a different manner to another group of people. Amazingly enough, Islam is often guilty of prejudice as well. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant. You need a reliable source showing the subject and its significance. Picking only Islam is a kind of discrimination itself. There has been ban on Gentile's entering within a border of Jewish residents and the particular sensitivity towards the temple. It is not something very specific to Islam as not to allow non-believers of any religion to enter the sacred place of others. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Many religions have their own sacred areas in which non-believers aren't allowed (LDS Church temples, for example) - for many its a place of worship's inner sanctum. Mecca occupies the same status as it contains the Masjid al-Haram (lit. The sacred mosque) and the Kaaba. So to just declare it "religious discrimination" is really not warranted unless there are some reliable sources specifically claiming it. ITAQALLAH 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Aminz nominated the page for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture/5 Yahel Guhan 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Reliable sources are needed, and have not been provided.Bless sins (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look into the situation. It appears that no editor is actually disputing that this is discrimination. Only BS, Aminz et al. argue that it is legitimate discrimination and they are free to hold that view just as the Saudi government is free to issue any laws they think fit in their . However, that doesn't make it an less discriminatory.

As for the claim that this a normal regulation: Mecca happens to be a city and not merely a sanctuary. There is a difference from barring the Great Mosque for non-Muslims (a long-standing rule and the actual, real, fitting parallel to the once existing ban on non-Israelites to enter the inner courtyards) and for barring the whole city. Consider the WSJ saying "This law is something of a singularity among major religions, because it isn't merely the Grand Mosque that is off-limits to nonbelievers, the way, for instance, a Mormon Temple is. It's a city--a major city with hotels, supermarkets, schools and a population of 1.2 million people. (The city of Medina, population 700,000, also forbids non-Muslims.)" Consider that more wordly things are happening there, such as the Fatah-Hamas agreement (an act basically disenfranchising all non-Muslim Palestinians).

As for the question about sources calling this discrimination:

  • "The road to Mecca is forbidden and foreboding to non-Muslims. Should they venture onto it, Saudi Arabian law mandates arrest, imprisonment, lashing, and expulsion. Signs high atop highways into Mecca from Jeddah and other entry points read, "Only Muslims Allowed." ... Nope. The world cannot perpetuate a farce by participating in discrimination ..." [5]
  • "The five-star hotel "is exclusively sited within the Holy City which, by national and religious law, is only accessible to visitors of the Muslim Religion." ... What are the roots of this apartheid?" [6]
  • "The archway at Mecca, shaped like a large book propped open, represents Islam's holy scripture, the Koran. From this point on, only Muslims may enter. Many religious scholars say this "discrimination" exists ..." [7]

In the face of this, I don't see how anyone can dispute that this is discrimination, no matter how legitimate anyone thinks it. Str1977 (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mecca image is an example of discrimination, just as much as the following:
  • United States giving automatic citizenship to those born in it, but requiring naturalization (a harder process) to give citizenship to those born elsewhere. Discrimination on the basis of country of origin.
  • Segregated bathrooms for men and women. This would nicely complement the first image (in which we have segregated rooms for blacks and whites), wouldn't it? Discrimination on the basis of gender.
  • Many pubs only allow people over the age of 21 to enter. Discrimination on the basis of age.
  • Affirmative action often discriminates against a particular ethnic group, in favor of another.
  • In India, the world's largest democracy, reservation discriminates against the higher castes by giving priority to the lower ones. Thus discrimination on the basis of caste.
All of the above are examples of clear discrimination. Ofcourse, most would consider them to be legitimate, but according to Str1977 legitimacy is not an issue.Bless sins (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Another point: the limits of where non-Muslim may not enter are well defined. They do not depend on the size of the city of Mecca. It is basically a piece of land where non-Muslims may not enter, regardless of what is on that land.Bless sins (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
BS,
  • Your US example is not discrimination at all. It merely outlines two different ways of acquiring US citizenship (and you forgot a third: being born to US citizens outside of the US). If a dairy farmer can have milk from his own cows while a city-dweller must buy it in a store, that's not discrimination either.
The toilet example might be seen as discrimination but in this case both groups are provided for. Where is the second Mecca open to non-Muslims?
  • Regarding the pubs, any minimum age would fit in here. But I don't think a requirement to be of a certain age is discrimination as anyone will eventually grow up to that age.
  • Affirmative action is indeed discrimination and of course should be included as well.
Finally, you miss one thing: what sources are calling US citizenship, seperate toilets or minimum ages as discrimination? The Mecca ban however is called that by sources. Str1977 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ofcourse the first example is discrimination. People are discriminated on where they are born. Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nope. It is just two ways of acquring citizenship. Being American is no fundamental right while freedom of movement is). I am doing quite well without being an American citizen. Str1977 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm...please see the first picture. During the time of segregated toilets, blacks were certainly provided toilets. It's just they had different toilets, and that was discrimination. In anycase, non-Muslims have the choice of going to Jeddah, a much more commercial and interesting (from a secular perspective) city. Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Still, that's not a second Mecca. Maybe, non-Muslims would be culturally interested. In contrast to the toilets, which are designed to perform identical functions (and consider that the differences is due to anatomical differences), Mecca and Jeddah are not identical. How would you like if German authorities told you that you, as a Muslims, could not got to Germany but that weren't so bad because you could go to Bosnia (the nearest muslim country)? You would shout discrimination. Str1977 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, anyone can convert to Islam as well. That's not the point. The point is that while being non-Muslim people can't enter Mecca, and while being below 21 or 18, one can't enter a pub. Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But you don't simply grow to be a Muslim. The example is simply ridiculous. Str1977 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing with Mecca as well. There are no reliable sources calling it discrimination. The issue is discussed in books published by Princeton University Press (and other reliable publications) yet Yahel resorts to editorials and op-eds.
Op-eds are a reliable source you say? Well, consider this one which says pretty negative things about Israel. Surely we can't use it as a reliable source on the Jewish state? Oh, and there's loads of op-eds coming from newspapers that say pretty critical things about Catholic church, Israel, United States etc. If op-eds were treated as RS, the word "alleged" in Allegations of Israeli apartheid wouldn't exist.Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
But these are sources. Don't raise other issues as whether they are rightly or wrongly covered here is of non consequence. We have to get this issue right in any case (and others may address other issues.)
This is going around in circles. Your argument seems to cycle between "we can't include the image without a reliable source to say that it is discrimination", to "it is discrimination, but so is this ,this and this other thing, so we should use those instead". With respect, a lot of your argument seems to be a red herring. Each entry proposed for the list of pics should be argued on it's own merits, without reference to a seemingly unlimited number of other examples. Kevin (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What should we do now? Should we try a second RFC? Try formal mediation? Something else? YahelGuhan (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to know where to go from here. Of those who have posted here in the last month or so, it is a definite "no consensus" either way. There's little point in continuing without some outside opinions, because all the arguments have been stated already. I don't think it's important enough to go to formal mediation. Perhaps an RFC would be useful. First though, maybe we could archive this page, and set out in a paragraph each the reasons for exclusion/inclusion. At least then any outside opinion won't have to wade through all this. Kevin (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"What should we do now?" realize that the Rwandan genocide was s far more severe example of "discrimination" than what happens at Mecca.
As far as I'm concerned, this portal isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of discriminations. Thus there will always be some that will not be here.
The Mecca image, for whose conclusion there is no consensus, should be one the images we won't include.Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruanda really is of no consequence to this issue.
"Thus there will always be some that will not be here. ... The Mecca image ... should be one the images we won't include." - And it is a mere coincidence that it is this image, which highlights a kind of discrimination that you wholeheartedly approve of, that should be left out?
What can you say to that. Str1977 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Severity is a poor argument for validity. It sounds like you are saying "discrimination against non-muslims in Mecca is not one of the major forms of discrimination, therefore we should not include it as a form of discrimination at all". Um, no. It's discrimination. It belongs on a page about discrimination. Saying "it's not THAT bad" is apologism, not refutation. - Keith D. Tyler 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(another reset) The examples cited above are not without merit.

  • Border security at nations. In other words, e.g., Americans get treated differently at the American border than non-Americans. That's not an invalid argument, really; the anarchists for example would of course agree with that sentiment. Now... if, say, the American border provides a different standard, all else being equal, between (say) Romanians and (say) Moldovans, that would be discrimination by nationality. Show me a picture, such as a border entry sign saying that a certain third-party nationality has different barriers to entry.
  • Sex segregation in bathrooms does exist. However this is not done as a matter of exclusion, but as a matter of providing avenues of modesty -- which is, generally, desired for the affected members. In other words, members of each gender both have an interest of modesty in segregating themselves from the other gender. Now, if you can argue that men's or women's restrooms are endemically in better condition than the other's, as it was under racial segregation in the U.S., we would (and did) have a case of discrimination. In fact, the article on washroom indicates that there are real concerns in this arena, such as public facilities where only the women's bathroom has baby-changing facilities -- discriminating against male guardians -- and dealing with cases of transsexual and transgendered people. These are valid discriminatory arguments. I would welcome the addition of a picture showcasing for example the "baby changing only in the womens' room", if you can find one.
  • Age discrimination in the ability to drink liquor and enter establishments dedicated to the drinking of liquor. Some (particularly teenagers) would agree with you. Add a picture of a "no entry under 21" sign. I wouldn't oppose it. The problem with age discrimination is not (at all) its validity but its intention and purpose, at least in terms of keeping immature people from handling dangerous and mind-altering substances. Some of course would argue that age discrimination is more damnable when it comes to, say, employment between ranges of adult ages (e.g. passing over a senior for a younger job candidate) than, say, keeping kids from dying or killing others. (Perhaps if you could show that a non-Muslim standing in Mecca or visiting Islamic holy sites or patronizing Meccan businesses would be physically dangerous for either that person or for Muslims -- especially in ways not resulting from or determined via further discrimination -- the pub/liquor example would be much more relevant to your argument.)
  • Affirmative action and reservation in India are of course discriminatory, and are in fact included on Portal:Discrimination and in Template:Discrimination. I would welcome pictures indicating either.

But in all these cases, note that a) the onus is not on your opponent (e.g. me) to provide these examples and b) none of them prove or suggest that Muslim exclusivity in Mecca is not discrimination. They merely provide (good, largely valid) additional cases of discrimination, among which religious discrimination is also valid. By saying that "these examples are also discriminatory" in fact admits the point. - Keith D. Tyler 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining discrimination objectively

Identifying discrimination is an objective exercise. Let's take a peek at the Wikipedia page for religious discrimination:

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.

There is nothing subjective about that definition. A scenario where one religion is treated differently because of their religion or lack of particular religion is objectively identifiable as religious discrimination. Can Muslims take the road to Mecca and enter the city of Mecca? Yes. Can non-Muslims? No. Is that a case of treating people differently due to their religion? Yes. Is that religious discrimination? Yes.

All of these other arguments are invalid. Whether or not I scoured the encyclopedia for images illustrating other forms of religious discrimination doesn't indicate that the image I did pick is somehow invalid for the purpose.

The image illustrates religious discrimination for a portal on discrimination topics. I do not need to include an image of all possible instances of all forms of discrimination. Such an exercise would be prohibitive and not the job of one person.

Someone added a picture illustrating the Holocast. Great! Neither image invalidates the other. But note that it won't improve the encyclopedia to use this Portal space as a battleground for one-upping one form of discrimination over another. That is, after all, the problem with discrimination in the first place. Supremacism of religious discrimination isn't any better than supremacism of religion.

The image and caption should stay in rotation.

- Keith D. Tyler 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In many places people are required to have membership card to enter the place; is that a form of discrimination? More at the issue is the possibility of membership being given to all races and genders. I think we need to be careful about when and why the term religous discrimination was invented? What types of discriminations were at the issue and how some people were suffering because of that. It is only then that we can understand the topic not simply by taking a definition and applying it to our case.
The specific issue we are talking about has other dimensions that might be missed by such superficial labellings: For Muslims the city of Mecca represents a pilgrimage place not a tourist place. Whenever a Muslim enters the city, he is obligated to do certain rituals. Now, if non-Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca, their very presence, in the long run, will disturb and transform Meccan's native culture by turning the Mecca into a tourist place at least from a psychological perspective.
Next thing is that if someone wants to visit the land owned by another person or by a group of people, he/she may be legally prevented from it if the consensus of people living in the land is so.
Last but not the least, we need reliable and non-political sources to show the notability of this alleged discrimination. Here we show 5-6 images and they have to be specifically notable. We don't add random acts of discrimination per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and other policies. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
What you if you're born in the city of Mecca, Aminz; and decided you'd like convert to Christianity (leaving aside, for the moment, Saudi Arabia's barbaric proscriptions regards that at odds with all civilized decency)? Would you be, or would you not be, discriminated against in such a case by the Saudi regime? (But of course you already know the answer to this.)--76.17.171.199 (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In many places people are required to have membership card to enter the place; is that a form of discrimination?
You're confusing the issue of private property and public property. Mecca is a huge city, not "gentleman's club".--76.17.171.199 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
By definition, yes, but not the sort we concern ourselves with in the generally used term "discrimination", which refers to discrimination based on societary groups. This has been already discussed over at the Discrimination WikiProject, so does not need to be expanded upon here.
I think we need to be careful about when and why the term religous discrimination was invented? What types of discriminations were at the issue and how some people were suffering because of that.
There is absolutely no criteria to the term "discrimination" that requires suffering to be involved.
It is only then that we can understand the topic not simply by taking a definition and applying it to our case.
That is a subjective position. Subjectivity has no place in an encyclopedia. Please review WP:NOT.
Now, if non-Muslims are allowed to enter Mecca, their very presence, in the long run, will disturb and transform Meccan's native culture by turning the Mecca into a tourist place at least from a psychological perspective.
Perhaps the most damning -- and common -- defense of societary discrimination. This argument is semantically equivalent to the old American anti-black clich%eacute; "there goes the neighborhood". Regardless of its apologism, it doesn't affect the fact that the issue is one of religious discrimination. It doesn't matter how justified you think the discrimination is -- that has no bearing on whether or not it is discrimination.
Next thing is that if someone wants to visit the land owned by another person or by a group of people, he/she may be legally prevented from it if the consensus of people living in the land is so.
a) Not if the prevention is based on what societary groups the prevented and/or allowed groups are members of, at least not in a jurisdiction where societary discrimination is illegal. b) Regardless, this is still just a justification for discrimination, not evidence that the practice is not discriminatory.

- Keith D. Tyler 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is apparently clear that we should start from the wikipedia reliable source and notability policies because it seems we are not going to agree on the other issues soon. What "scholarly" reliable source mentions this as particularly notable to merit addition here? --Be happy!! (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not restore the image until a consensus is formed. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Lets see. First, there are enough reliable sources for the image right now as it is (the CNN and the US government articles). Secondly, I think the image should remain until a consensus is formed, as it does seem that currently there seems to be more support in favor of keeping the image. Yahel Guhan 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't have any reliable sources saying that this is discrimination. We have reliable sources saying that some people think this is discrimination, but that's different. Also I don't see consensus (3-4 isn't one).Bless sins (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, Please provide a RS that explicitly says that this is discrimination or the image must be removed. Imad marie (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote showing consensus or lack of it

Please note that polling discourages consensus, and is not a substitute for discussion.Bless sins (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

However it can be a useful method for summarising the views of those involved in the discussion. Kevin (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said it can't be a substitute for discussion. Consensus will be achieved through discussion, not voting.Bless sins (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those who agree with the inclusion of Mecca image

  1. For reasons mentioned above. Yahel Guhan 06:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. This is obvious discrimination as explained clearly by Keith where he pointed out the definition of Discrimination. I cant believe someone would even raise a point on this one. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. This is an obvious case of discrimination. Keep of course. Dincher (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep. No valid arguments against the inclusion of the picture among this rotation. The arguments given are more appropriate for other avenues (where I expect they would likewise fail). Granting myself a moment of subjectivity here: one of the greatest evils of discrimination is its desire to hide itself. - Keith D. Tyler 16:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Ultra-strong Keep. The Mecca image epitomizes the concept of discrimination, especially when taking in the context that the entire Suadi Arabian nation is a systematically discriminatory state in which non-Muslims are second-class citizens, and apostasy from Islam is punishable by death (you are considered a Muslim at birth if one of your parents is, and have no choice in the matter of changing your mind later on...if you value your hide). It is simply nauseating that Islamists would maintain that this is not discrimination (let alone as clear-cut of an example as whites-only drinking-fountains) because notable western media organs don't preface mentions of Mecca with the label. --76.17.171.199 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep Per all five above.Rhumbd (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Note: The above user's first edit to the English wikipedia is the above vote (marked as a minor edit). You may check his/her contributions.Bless sins (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Trying to discount votes now that you aren't the majority? Yahel Guhan 22:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    This is his first edit to english wikipedia. Let's not conjecture who the user may be. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:SPA is a valid observation and is generally discounted in binding votes (which this is not). - Keith D. Tyler 17:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Keep. This should be a no-brainer, as explained in the section above. Str1977 (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Include the image. It clearly illustrates a form of discrimination, and the image provides a clear and unequivocal portrayal that requires the minimum of explanation, which makes it particularly suitable for it's intended purpose here. Kevin (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those who disagree with the inclusion of Mecca image

  1. For the above mentioned reasons. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. As per total lack of any verification from reliable sources. Many religions have their own sacred or santified areas which are off-limits to non-believers, be it LDS Church temples, Nepalese Hindu temples, or any of the examples mentioned by Aminz. To clump it all together by means of a dictionary definition smacks of "subjectivity" and inappropriate synthesis. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. No source has been provided.Bless sins (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Per the arguments above. Imad marie (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. No sources, and equally no as per the discussion. thestick (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

76.17.171.199 - Please see WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL, Saudi arabia isn't a systematically discriminatory state - there was never any history of and there aren't any "Muslim or Non-Muslim waiting rooms", or "Different wells for white and 'colored' people" and non-muslims/blacks were never "Sent to the back of the bus" etc. This is restricted access, not discrimination, even Muslims aren't allowed into Mecca during peak times without permits thestick (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A business with a "whites only" policy is discriminating. Likewise, a city with a "muslims only" policy is also discriminating. - Keith D. Tyler 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You're saying that "Muslim or Non-Muslim waiting rooms" would be discriminatory, but "Muslim or Non-Muslim" roads and cities are not? So if a imam came and certified a bathroom as holy, it would be okay (and um, non-discrminatory) to prevent non-muslims from using it, right? - Keith D. Tyler 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing whether it's discrimination or not - there are no reliable sources. But since you want to discuss the subject in general - why can't foreign nationals work for lockheed martin or ball aerospace etc. Why do people need a 'security clearance' - I can say thats discrimination too. Why can't Arnold run for US president? etc. thestick (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The "reliable source" is the picture of the sign itself. Continued denial here is simply ludicrous.--13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire issure here is whether it is discrimination or not. You think it isn't, probably because you are a muslim, and therefore you feel it should be removed. Prehaps I'm the only one to notice that all the opposition to the inclusion of the image here seems to be muslim, while everyone who supports its incusion seems to be non-muslim? Prehaps there is a slight bias? There are enough sources in my opinion here for its inclusion. Say what you

want about other examples. If they aren't notable, and in pictures that are not fair use, which make it obvious that it is discrimination, which they are not, they are irrelevant here. Yahel Guhan 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a 100% muslim country, so all citizens are allowed into mecca, the only non-muslims are foreigners, and just like several places in several countries are off-limits to foreigners, and isn't called discrimination - I think they can determine where foreigners can go or not. Also, the examples I provided are as notable as this one. Also on what basis are you including the image? There surely are much better examples of the >4000 year old history of discrimination thestick (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Saudi Arabia is notorious for its discrimination against non-muslims. The point is the sign says "muslims only", not "Saudis only." They discriminate amongst the tourists based on religion. Non-Saudi Arabian muslims are allowed in the city. Non-muslims are not. That is the definition of discrimination, and the source does say that it is discrimination. "From this point on, only Muslims may enter. Many religious scholars say this "discrimination" exists because Mecca was once a city where Muslims -- including the prophet Mohammed -- were persecuted and driven out. When Mohammed and his followers reclaimed the city, it was declared a sanctuary ... a place where every Muslim should feel safe."[8] Of corse, you'd probably say any source that says it is so is "unreliable," probably because it isn't your belief. There surely are much better examples Then add them. That is, however, no reason to remove this one. Yahel Guhan 02:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice "discrimination" is in double quotes. That's a subtle way of saying "Don't cite this on wikipedia" thestick (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
According to who? Yahel Guhan 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Riz Khan, also I think it is possible to have this discussion with that image not included in the page. thestick (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Riz Khan doesn't say it isn't "discrimination". He says just the opposite in the article. Why remove it? Originally removing it was the new edit, and doesn't appear to have consensus. Yahel Guhan 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
See: Scare quotes - it is often used in a sarcastic or ironic context. In fact, in your very next sentence after that extract you use scare quotes in the same manner, so let's not play coy. Understanding the context and tone of the passage is thus important, instead of simply quote mining. ITAQALLAH 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Presuming the tone and context of a passage is a subjective assessment, i.e. synthesis, whereas suggesting that exclusion based on religion is religious discrimination is not. Synthesis is taking two citations, presuming them to be true, and combining them to a third presumed truth -- which is entered in an article. But the application of a dictionary definition for categorization is not synthesis - Keith D. Tyler 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
<reset>Hi Keith. It's often not appropriate to use two sources in conjuction to produce an assertion supported by neither - which is the general meaning of WP:SYN. Thank you for providing the sources below, but I must note a few things. If the CNN transcript is the same one as above, I don't believe it's sufficient for us to conclude that reliable sources say this is religious discrimination.
Your second link discusses cases of discrimination against Muslims in America, and mentions at the end a case of relevance. The source needs to be read in context. It's talking about an instance where Dynalectron Corp., an American company, was sued for religious discrimination for forcing its employees to undergo religious indoctrination so they could enter Mecca. The subject is thus Dynalectron and the case against it, not any accusation of religious discrimination against Mecca/Saudi Arabia.
The third source is an op-ed of a political commentator, which isn't particularly useful for verifying whether RS say the limited access is religious discrimination. It verifies that Mr. Last thinks this, but it's clearly marked as an opinion piece which are by their nature subjective, strongly opinionated, etc. Thank you again for the sources, as it allows our discussion to move forward. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's some references for you: CNN [9] WSJ - Keith D. Tyler 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The first source doesn't name the "scholar". Secondly, "discrimination" is in quotations, showing that the it is not "discrimination" actually may be a misnomer. The anonymous scholar then seems to defend the "discrimination", showing he understands it, and thus doesn't beleive it is truly discriminatory in the spirit the word is used here.
The second source seems a bit irrelevant. The sign doesn't ask non-Muslims to convert, as the source alleges (that may or may not be true is a separate context but is not relevant to the sign). The source nowhere says "discrimination". Finally what makes the source a reliable one on Islam?
The third source also make no allegation of "discrimination". It is very critical, but doesn't not even say the D-word. Infact, the article notes a State Department official saying "We are not aware of many demands by non-Muslims to visit Islamic holy sites," indicating how little effect the sign has. Finally, what are source's credentials in the field of religion and religious discrimination? I didn't see any.Bless sins (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
First, the source CNN, like most news sources, does not state the author's name when presenting the news. They are a RS which states it is discrimination. Second, the quotes being a "miosnomer" is all speculation on your part. The second source does not need to be reliable on Islam (this is not an islam-related issue; it is a discrimination issue); only discrimination. Discrimination is mentioned in the article numerous times. The third source: "What are the roots of this apartheid" No mention of discrimination? What is your definition of discrimination? Apartheid is a form of discrimination. The author is a newspaper reporter. He is reliable to report upon this news of a recent case of discrimination. Yahel Guhan 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that this discussion is still going on. I agree with YG in his statement that only Muslims seem to have a problem with this pic being included in the rotation. As I have stated several times it is obviously discrimination. And it shows that not only white Christians or so called Christians can discriminate on a basis of religion or race. I do believe that all or most of the other pics in the rotation show discrimination perpetrated by white "Christians". Dincher (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
CNN doesn't state that it is discrimination. It only reports that someone calls it discrimination. Similarly CNN reports that Bin Laden calls Christians as "crusaders". This doesn't mean that Christians are Crusaders, only that they are accused of being Crusaders by Bin Laden. About misnomer, then why do the scholars put the word discrimination in quotes (" "). Again, look at the CNN source: it also puts the term "crusaders" in quotes showing that it is merely reporting a stance, not making any judgments.
Can you show how the second source is reliable. "Discrimination is mentioned in the article numerous times." It is mentioned in relation to discrimination against Muslim employees. It is also mentioned in relation to forced religious conversion. None of the topics are relevant here.
It doesn't matter what my definition of discrimination is. Also if allegations of apartheid are discrimination, then there is potential to include Israel's occupation of West Bank here. Again there is no reliability of the third source.Bless sins (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no mention of "Christians". Even if there was these allegations are made against fringe elements of Christianity not the mainstream holy places which Christians visit by the millions.Bless sins (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ article clearly calls the banning of non-Muslims from Mecca "apartheid". Apartheid, as we all know, is a policy of discrimination. The argument that discriminating between religions is not discrimination is without merit, but an attempt to whitewash religiously-sanctioned discrimination. Take me to arbitration, I'm putting the picture and the original description up, and you can revert me all day if you like. - Keith D. Tyler 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The WSJ article in question is an op-ed. Hence, it is saturated with personal opinions, claims, rants, etc. - as op-eds usually are. It's not any sort of source for factual information, except as a reflection of what the author believes. ITAQALLAH 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Keith D. Tyler. What you are inserting, does not appear in the sources. I have made this argument here, but you have failed to respond to it. And Itaqallah is right, you are quoting an op-ed. Newspapers frequently like to quote notable figures, but that doesn't mean what notable figures say is reliable.
For example the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by a Hamas official ([10]). Interestingly enough the op-ed accuses Israel of being an "apartheid state", for, in part, keeping Palestinians in a "10 to a room in a cinderblock, tin-roof United Nations hut." Now shall I place a picture of such a home, and then use the op-ed to call it discrimination?Bless sins (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Hamas case, the news is quoting an extramist, rather than publishing an opinion; big difference. Not that I see the point of your arguement. Yahel Guhan 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, do you see the blue word "Opinion" at the top of the page? It also says "LAT Home > Opinion". This indicates that the newspaper is publishing an "opinion". Both are opinions. Neither are facts.Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, J. Wales said Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Thus until consensus is achieved, its best to not include the image. There are tons of other examples of discrimination (ever heard of the Rwandan genocide?). If users became a bit broad minded they would find it.Bless sins (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is best not to make changes without consensus, which is what your removial of the image was. Otherwise anyone can remove anything they disagree with and drag the debate out eternally, as you seem to be attempting. Yahel Guhan 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Like Wales says "zero information is better than misleading information". There is no consensus to have this image. Also, the addition of this image (but not the addition of an image on the Rwandan genocide) shows the bad faith on your part. Also, the image of the Nazi camps was added by me, whereas you only want the image of Mecca and don't care about anything else. Bless sins (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You can misinterprit policy all you want; you aren't getting that image perminantly removed that way. He says remove original research; this image is not original research. You've now dropped that arguement, and now argue it is selective. You want the Rwandan genocide image, pick a good, representative, picture, and add it; but that is not going to be leverage to remove the mecca image. While you are at it, why don't you add an image of Darfur or the armenian genocide? Yahel Guhan 03:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Above, I'm arguing that it is original research. If you ignore my comments, that's another thing. Note that the above argument has now boiled down to one source only, as you and others have stopped upholding the other sources. Also, sure we can add Darfur. But we can add images of Israeli apartheid too. A source has already been provided above, that under your criteria is legitimate. Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You argue OR in spite of the existance of sources. It isn't OR. No, no image of an alleged israeli apartheid are going to be added, because unlike the Mecca case, where no source denys it is discrimination, there are plaenty of reliable sources questioning the very existacne of an israeli apartheid. So no; it isn't legitimite. Yahel Guhan 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources often exist for original research but they are used improperly. Ofcourse I'm not adding Israeli apartheid here on the basis of an op-ed. I'm not you, nor do I want to be. But I want no double standards and don't want the Mecca image to be here on the basis of an op-ed. I'm going to test the reliability of the op-ed.Bless sins (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Mind WP:CIVIL. There are no double standards here. The image is here based on numerous reliable sources, not an op-ed. Yahel Guhan 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Numerous? Three were initially provided. One (the CNN) actually justifies the action. The second talks of (forced) religious conversion, something that has nothing to do with the image. The third is an op-ed.Bless sins (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
And even the CNN source is using the word in scare quotes. ITAQALLAH 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok
  1. we are not requiring RS's to support the other pictures on this page to specifically talk about "discrimination". Commonsense is the standard on this page. Discrimination means, treating someone differently on the basis of their religion. This is what the sign says. Does a RS have to talk about the sign and say its discrimination? No, not required. We can use a source that simply says "non-muslims are forbidden to enter mecca" and doesnt talk about the sign, even if it doesnt mention "discrimination".
  2. Sources have been added where the discrimination is being discussed anyway
  3. If Nepali Hindu temples also dont allow anyone else, that doesnt mean this Mecca thing is not discrimination. Find a picture for the hindu temples and a source for that if you want to. Similarly for LDS churches. Ofcourse this is all discrimination. Find the picture and add it here.
Also I think we need to take this to the wider community because not many people are watching this page, so we must get more input. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I think RS's aren't being requested for other images is because they're not contested at all. See the relevant section on WP:CITE. So it's not simply an issue of common sense, because perspectives here can easily differ. A Muslim not being allowed into a LDS temple church service is not a conventional, indisputable case of "discrimination." The sources that have so far been provided aren't sufficient for the reasons given above. ITAQALLAH 18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Common sense would lead us to beleive that borders are an example of discrimination because they treat people on the basis of their nationality (or nation of origin).Bless sins (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the question about the editorial, I posted on WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Opinion.2Feditorial). The responses seem to have said that the topic of Mecca was notable, and we shouldn't have to rely on opinions/editorials, as if something is true it should have been widely covered. Another response said that editorials are only reliable for their own opinion, not for facts.Bless sins (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, Anyone who is reverting me, can you consider continuing discussion, as opposed to continuous reversion? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I'm still waiting for a response.Bless sins (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is still ongoing, and consensus on this specific issue has not been reached yet. Besides, one users opinion does not make it policy. You're not getting rid of the picture that easily (if at all). Yahel Guhan 23:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There isn't any consensus to keep the image either. Since this is an allegation which has dubious sources, it's better to keep it out till the dispute is resolved with help of 3rd party editors. Or is the plan to edit war for days and request for protection. thestick (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a request for a third opinion. It is better to keep it till the dispute is resolved, because it was the new edit (removing it) which caused this dispute in the first place. It seems you support the edit war approach based on your actions. You aren't going to get rid of the image by demanding its removial. Yahel Guhan 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is the suggestion of using another image on which everyone is in agreement instead of one that's dubious 'Demanding it's removal' ? This page is not a soapbox where it's a great loss if you keep a disputed image out while a solution is reached. thestick (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I can see here, the problem is, it seems you could drag this dispute out for the next century. Hopefully we'll get new opinions in the next few days (and hopefully enough for a consensus). Otherwise we'll have to take it to mediation. Yahel Guhan 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. WP:3O is for 2 people disputes only. Requested medcab mediation. Yahel Guhan 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"It seems you support the edit war approach based on your actions." - I suggested WP:DR. "From what I can see here, the problem is, it seems you could drag this dispute out for the next century." - You could do that too. thestick (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the question even is here. When we have a photo of a tree, we don't require a reliable source saying "This is a tree" to say it is. If the image clearly is of a tree, we simply say "This is a tree," as the plant in the photo meets the definition of a tree. We wouldn't question the use of a photo of a "whites only" drinking fountain or restroom in the discrimination article, as it is clearly and unambiguously an example of discrimination. So, let's look at some definitions here. The Wiktionary definition seems appropriate, especially number four: "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners." Religion is a class or category as surely as race or nationality is. Merriam-Webster defines it as "3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>". There are our reliable sources. A prohibition based on class (such as religion) is discrimination. The sign near Mecca is by definition a form of discrimination, as it says "This class may (...), and all outside that class may not (...)". We could replace the "This class" with "Whites" and the parentheses with "apply for employment", or we could fill "This class" with "Muslims" and the parentheses with "enter the area", but anything which could fill in that sentence is discrimination. One may argue whether such discrimination is justifiable based on religion or not, but it is, nonetheless, discrimination. By definition. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Going by your argument, a university campus allowing only those with a student/staff ID to get in could also be called discrimination, but it's not. Also we have to consider on how general usage of the word affects it's meaning, like Antisemitism. Anyway, my points are: 1) There are no reliable sources that categorically state this as a form of discrimination, most of them are just scare quotes or opinion pieces - also there is no prejudice or partiality involved, this is just a restricted area. 2) Is this notable enough? I think the quality of the gallery would be better without this pic. 3) There are better examples of discrimination which everyone can agree upon and notable, why include this with dubious status. thestick (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A staff-only lounge is, by the definition, discrimination. So is allowing only employees onto company property. So, for that matter, is eating only vegetables and declining to consume meat. Granted, all of those things are routine and expected types of discrimination, and we consider none of them unethical or wrong. (Nor do we often refer to these things as discrimination, just as we do not often refer to table salt as sodium chloride. However, those things still are discrimination by the definition, just as table salt still is sodium chloride.) All your arguments may be valid, and without a better overview of the situation, I won't address them here. However, I'm seeing claims above that it's not discrimination. Well of course it is! You could make arguments that other images better suit the topic, and perhaps that's true, but it seems to me to be a pretty clear example of religious discrimination, just like a "whites only" sign would be a pretty clear visual representation of racial discrimination. But one simply cannot make a case that it is not discrimination at all, any more than one could argue that water is not wet. It is, by definition, discrimination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is a textbook case of discrimination, which needs no references to prove. We might as well demand a citation to support the claim that the picture is of a sign. There is no claim that it is either lawful or unlawful, justified or not, both of which would call for a reliable source. Seraphimblade make a convincing argument here. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We are mentioning six most notable examples of discrimination and any addition to this page requires solid sourcing showing 1. it is discrimination 2. it is notable enough to be included in this page as one of the six discriminations (like the world wonders). --Be happy!! (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, some things are so obvious that a citation is not required, and that this sign is an example of a form of discrimination is one of those things. You are being a bit selective in exactly what requires such solid sourcing, in that you don't argue that the other images should have a source saying that they represent discrimination. I don't see the issue with notability either, we are not saying that these are the top examples, they are just some examples. What is your real reason for not wanting this particular image (given that I know you feel it needs a source)? Kevin (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think it is discrimination and they are simply "examples" among billions of other examples, then why this insistence on including it. I do think we need reliable sources establishing the type and notability of the presented discriminations.--Be happy!! (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the other images have plenty of reliable sources describing them as discrimination, and it's universally agreed and verifiable too. Why select only this image based on a super-strict etymological interpretation of the word discrimination, that seems borderline SYNTH or WP:OR to me, even a NPOV problem. thestick (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Discrimination, in its strictly linguistic sense, refers to differential recognition. But standard, conventional usage possesses of the word includes the notion of actions based upon unwarranted prejudice - its connotation almost exclusively negative. While the staff-only lounge analogy clearly demonstrates "discrimination" from a linguistic stand-point, a non-employee would have to off their rocker to claim that they were being 'discriminated against' in its conventional understanding. ITAQALLAH 17:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Strictly linguistic sense is not what is applied to Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, or Portal:Discrimination, and that is stated in each place. "Strictly linguistic" argument is a straw man at worst, a selective-acknowledgment attempt at reductio ad absurdum (one which woud be fruitless as the "absurd" conclusion would still be accurate) at best.
The "staff only" argument is further irrelevant, because for it to be applicable, there would have to be some private organizational entity to which all Muslims belong, which in turn owns the title deed to all the land comprising the cities of Mecca and Medina. Neither of these hold. If these did exist, we would then enter the realm of private property rights and trespassing laws. But unless you can show me the property-holding organization to which all Muslims belong, it doesn't apply.
Now, if a business sets aside a special seating area for, say, non-muslims, then, that would be societary discrimination. Likewise, if, say, a city or state were to bar all blacks from entering, that, too, would be societary discrimination. Take the societary group of the first example and the realm of the second example and you have the example of Mecca and Medina. QED. - Keith D. Tyler 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
To Seraphimblade "A staff-only lounge is, by the definition, discrimination. So is allowing only employees onto company property. So, for that matter, is eating only vegetables and declining to consume meat." So putting a picture of a staff lounge or vegetarian here would be appropriate?
"Religion is a class or category as surely as race or nationality is" Thus borders that allow people of special nationality to enter freely, but require those of other nationalities to either get visa (or sometimes bar them from entering all together) would also be discrimination.
"Seraphimblade make a convincing argument here." So apparently Kevin agrees.
Here's what I think. If we use Seraphimblade's definition Putting in the Mecca image is OK, as long we fetch images of vegetarians discriminating against meat, staff lounges discriminating against non-staff members, top-secret military facilities discriminating against non-military personnel, borders discriminating against non-Nationals etc.
What do you guys think?Bless sins (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You know an argument's weak when the defence to it is bring up a lot of hypothetical alternatives that are not even the subject matter in issue. The photo highlights a very significant instance of discrimination still lingering in the contemporary world. There aren't any other examples of an area as large as the environs of a city of 1.7 million people that discriminates against individuals on the basis of what is solely an aspect of conscience. It's like putting a sign up 50kms outside of Washington DC for the purpose of banning Hindus or communists. Something unspeakable, in other words.Rhumbd (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been clearly stated in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination that the term is used to refer to discrimination of people based on societary group. So no, eliminating asparagus from one's diet does not qualify. And no, national borders do not by definition discriminate entry based on societary group; if they do -- for example, not allow blacks or muslims or gays to enter -- then yes, such a case would be discrimination (of individuals based on societary group). And here we have a case where a city border does not allow members not of certain religions to enter. Ergo, discrimination. I don't care what apologists want to call it, or what excuses they want to make up for it, that does not change that it is qualifiably discrimination. Keith D. Tyler 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought you agreed with Seraphimblade' suggestion. Well, I guess you went back on your word. BTW, discrimination is to be determined by reliable sources, not your above original research. Let's get back to that discussion. I think the last post on the topic was mine at 13:04, 26 April 2008. Do you still think your source(s) is/are worthy? Why, (in the light of my concerns against them)Bless sins (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed your concern against the CNN article -- and they (your concerns) were bogus and misleading. You're trying to say that since the CNN article talks about the entrance to Mecca and not the highway sign to Mecca that there is no religious discrimination in the words "muslims only". Whatever. 1. Non-muslims are not allowed in Mecca. (Yes? No?) 2. There is a highway sign on the road to Mecca that says "Muslims only" (Yes? No?) 3. There is a highway sign adjacent to that one for a highway exit to Jeddah that says "Obligatory for non-Muslims". Yes? No? If you said "yes" to questions 1-3, then the picture of the sign, the page it is on, and the citation of the image are all legitimate. WP:SYN is not a tool for replacing objective logic with apologist illogic. - Keith D. Tyler 18:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm the "archway" wasn't my primary concern. Because the image of the highway sign can be easily replaced by the image of the archway and we'd back to square one. As regards to your questions, the answers are yes, but since when are these questions the governing criteria of inclusion? Infact the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V). So wikipedia doesn't care if it is true that Mecca is the most discriminatory, apartheid-like place on earth, it cares what the reliable sources say. Reliable sources which you have yet to produce.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, we do have three sources that identify this as discrimination. (Hence all "Verifiability not truth" songs are even more out of tune than they are anyway.) Some claim since all Saudis are Muslim, barring non-Muslims is okay. However, it is not non-Saudis that are barred (millions of non-Saudis come there every year) but non-Mulisms. As for the distancing effect of scare quotes. Maybe the quoted scholars want to distance themselves but we cannot certainly deduce that. And if they wanted to it still goes to show that the view exists and at least credited such distancing. Str1977 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, we don't have three sources establishing this as discrimination. One source (strategycenter) isn't even talking about Mecca, one (WSJ) is an op-ed, and the other (CNN) uses it in scare quotes. You should probably know this assuming you've read through the discussion. ITAQALLAH
ANother word about the CNN source. CNN never claims that there is "discrimination". It claims that others claim that there is "discrimination". Thus the reliability/notablity of the opinion depends on who those others are. Unfortunately CNN doesn't even name its sources, much less stating their credentials.Bless sins (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure we do have three sources. All call it discrimination and this is basis enough to at least makes it arguable as discrimination, destroying your point.
If scholars feel call to distance themselves from a view, it is clear that they take it seriously.
BS, elsewhere you are not that picky about sources not naming their sources. Elsewhere you never heard of scarequotes. Amazing. Str1977 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"All call it discrimination..." - I question whether you have read the sources in question. Perhaps you could respond to the contentions I have raised about each of the sources. ITAQALLAH 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have read them. Two call it discrimination though one seems to do a bit of distancing. Nonetheless, it uses the word and hence it is a notable view. The third calls it apartheid, which is a form of discrimination. Str1977 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll repeat my argument. Two of the sources are op-eds. They are editorials. Editorials need not be authored by reliable sources. As I've indicated above, Hamas has published an editorial in the LA Times; does that make Hamas a reliable source?
With the CNN we not only have scare quotes; we don't know who is making the claims. CNN certainly isn't. CNN also doesn't provide us with the name of who makes the claim.Bless sins (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are saying two are opeds? And how do you try to disqualify the third?
Your point about "reliable sources" is wrong as the actual fact involved is the road sign and the ban on non-Mulims entering Mecca. The fact is undisputed and the opinion is the author's own.
CNN is reporting that scholars took up the claim and explained it.
Seems all perfectly RS to me.
I don't know any Hamas article so I cannot comment on it. In any case, Hamas is off topic here. This case has to be decided by its own merits, not by spurious comparisons drawn from a hat. Str1977 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as you say you've read all of the sources, let's start with strategycenter.net. The whole article is about discrimination of Muslims in the workplace. Where does it ever unequivocally declare the issue of non-Muslims not being allowed into Mecca as discrimination?? The only time it ever mentions Mecca is in regard to a lawsuit filed against an American company, Dynalectron corp, for religious discrimination. ITAQALLAH 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I was talking about the three sources I referred to above - three sources that DO talk about discrimination. That there are sources not doing that (especially if they are about a different topic, a different discrimination if you will) is of no consequence. Str1977 (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The three sources I'm talking about are the three provided above by User:KeithTyler. That is, the CNN article, the WSJ op-ed, and the strategycenter.net article. These are the only three sources that have been linked to in this section. Where is this other source you're talking about? Found the other source (NYSun) in another section. It looks like a journalist airing his opinion in a conservative press to me. ITAQALLAH 18:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break

(un-indent) Does anyone here think it's possible to stop the continual reversion here until after a consensus is reached? I don't see that there is any clear consensus yet, regardless of my own views. For my part, it is not important to me whether the image is in or out while the discussion continues. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the image stays in, those like me consider it to be an example of misonformation. If it stays out, though you will find it less favorable, you can't say that there is a lack of information, because there are many examples of discrimination that are not included (some, more notable than the image in dispute). Therefore I think the image should stay out during the discussion, as it is a state favorable to one party and doesn't matter to the others.
Also, let's hasten the discussion, so we can arrive at a consensus sooner.Bless sins (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The portal is currently protected, so there will be no distractions in coming to a consensus. I think first we might agree on the issues involved here, and then argue those issues. From my perspective they are:
  • Is the barring of non-Muslim's from Mecca a form of discrimination? Alternately, would the average person form that view?
  • Is this example a useful portrayal in this Portal?
Unfortunately I think it will be difficult to gain a consensus unless more people come here to voice their opinion. Kevin (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, is it a form of "discrimination" in the meaning of the term that is applicable here? If we define "discrimination" as to "to note or observe a difference" then everyone from vegetarian (who "observe a difference" between meant and non-meat) to companies (who "observe a difference" between employees and non-employees) to Meccan authorities (who "observe a difference" between Muslims and non-Muslims) are practicing discrimination. But in this case "discrimination" is defined as acts motivated by prejudice or contempt of others - the average person would view.
You have yet to show how the word discrimination implies a negative value. Placing a value judgment on a term or topic is not objective or neutral. Those of us in favor of the image's inclusion have not imposed, implied, or asserted a negative connotation of the word. Assumption of a negative connotation seems to be driving this desire to have this policy recategorized as something other than discrimination, despite there being no dispute as to the policy. Moreover, discrimination does not require contempt. It requires unequal treatment. - Keith D. Tyler 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also agree. When placing the Mecca image, we have to consider the type of images already placed here on this portal. This portal is dedicated to examples of racist, homophobic, sexist etc. forms of discrimination. Whether the Mecca example is useful/notable in this portal is indeed a question.Bless sins (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you come to that conclusion? Religious discrimination fits perfectly within the examples you list. The Mecca image is an excellent example because it is so immediately apparent (to a reasonable viewer) from just the image itself. Kevin (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Religious discrimination certainly does fit. And I also agree that the image tries to paint that picture. Yet it still remains to be seen that scholarly/reliable sources categorize Mecca as religious discrimination.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Pointing that non-muslims are not allowed into Mecca is not misinformation. You yourself have agreed that this is happening. You just aren't comfortable with the word "discrimination" being applied to it despite its unarguable suitability. It doesn't matter why people are allowed into or barred from Mecca based on their religion. It doesn't matter how long it has been going on. It doesn't matter how many people agree with it. It doesn't matter if it is "justified" (a purely subjective term anyway). It doesn't matter if it is "good discrimination" or "bad discrimination" (more purely subjective terms). None of these variables have any effect on the reality that it is discrimination. I have pointed elsewhere that discrimination is an objectively applicable term. Whether you associate negative, positive, or neutral feelings with the word, that is your own fault, and not that of the word's, it's definition, or its applicability. - Keith D. Tyler 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really. thestick (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a children's informational book that states that non-Muslims who enter Mecca face "severe" punishment. Do you care to know the title, author, publisher and ISBN? This would seem to be a reliable source of the discrimination that takes place in Mecca. Dincher (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that non-Muslims are not allowed in, but that this restriction can be described as discrimination. How does the book describe the treatment of non-Muslims? Does the book have a bibliography that might help us find other sources? Kevin (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct no one is disputing that non-Muslims who break Saudi law (by entering Mecca) will face punishment. The question is whether this is an example of discrimination.Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question for everyone: Assuming that:
    • This portal doesn't intend to be an exhaustive list of all sorts of discrimination. In other words, there will always be cases of discrimination not covered in images by this portal.
    • The images that will be present, will ideally be historic/notable examples of discrimination universally recognized as such (which allows us to easily find scholarly/reliable sources).
Why is it that users are pushing so deperately to have an image of Mecca included? If you want examples of religious discrimination, why not turn to the infamous Inquisitions? If you want current examples, you can go to the 2002 Gujarat violence for an example of universally condemned killings of Hindus and Muslims simply because of thier religion.
My question is that why would users keep digging deep to find sources on Mecca, while 4 out of 5 current entries don't even have sources? Notable examples of discrimination like the Rwandan genocide, or the ethnic cleansing during the break of Yugoslavia remain absent (even Nazi actions were absent from this page, until I added them here).Bless sins (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your first point - we can't list them all. I agree with your second, except that I'm not convinced that sources are needed. For myself, I don't feel any need to have a Muslim related example, but the image in question is such a clear portrayal of discrimination that it makes it much more useful for this purpose - which is to use an image and a very brief paragraph to portray the subject. Your example of Gujarat, while certainly valid is much more difficult to portray by visual means to those not familiar with the subject. So, in essence, my position is that the Mecca image should be included because it is an easy to understand example that clearly portrays discrimination. If the other examples you gave can be visually portrayed as well, then they should be added also. There's no real limit on how many entries are in the list, and the more the better really. Kevin (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is illustrative purposes you're looking for, then a "Authorized Personnel only" sign illustrates the concept of discrimination. So do the signs on airports and airplanes that discriminate against the "Economy class" and "Business class". Hell, if you're looking for a really illustrative example, then how about a separate toilets for men and women (similar to separate toilets for whites and blacks)? Separate locker rooms, separate change rooms, separate shower stalls at workout facilities...Bless sins (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
1. There is no reason to add X number of additional cases of a certain form of discrimination. The point of a portal is not to be exaustive. Any attempt to be exhaustive out of fear of bullying will be harmful to the encyclopedia. 2. If we intend to add some unknown quantity of additional religious discrimination cases, why not then add a similarly additional quantity of additional racism, antisemitism, homophobia, sexism, etc. images? 3. Doing so will not settle the argument because the argument will then become about how many additional cases are sufficient to dilute the case that the apologists want to obfuscate. 4. I see no benefit in creating a precedent where one case of discrimination can be bullied off the Portal or elsewhere simply because an apologist wants to selectively apply words they are not comfortable with. That will open a floodgate of constant challenges that will be harmful to the encyclopedia. 5. It is already difficult to find images that illustrate various forms of discrimination. Asking others to provide more images is to place the burden of effort on those who are maintaining the portal rather than the burden of effort being placed on those who have a problem with it (see {{sofixit}}). 6. WP:OSE is never a good argument in WP. - Keith D. Tyler 15:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"except that I'm not convinced that sources are needed" - there's the problem, you need reliable sources and not opinion pieces or journals which make the claim in only scare quotes - otherwise it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH . It's not up for us to make judgements - Also going by your previous arguments you seem apply a logic only to this image which would imply even shape selective enzymes to be discrimination and worthy of an image inclusion. There's no need to go super etymological and linguistic here when there are no proper verifiable and reliable sources. And please be CIVIL and comment on the edit in question and not the editors. thestick (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"Why is it that users are pushing so deperately to have an image of Mecca included? If you want examples of religious discrimination, why not turn to the infamous Inquisitions?"
BS, one can just as easily ask: Why is that users are pushing so desparately to have this image of Mecca excluded. The second part of your sentence seems a cheap shot to me as you did not bother to use an Islamic counterexample but resorted to the old hag of the "Inquisitions" (sure not a nice thing). Some people might think that this is scapegoating Christians. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)