Template talk:Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Previous templates at this name

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

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


[edit] Anti-Semitism

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

[edit] Discrimination WikiProject

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

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

[edit] Alignment

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

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

[edit] Added to most articles

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

[edit] Determination

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

[edit] Developing horizontal form

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

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

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

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

[edit] Side issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Master template?

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

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

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

[edit] Talk pages archives

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


[edit] Counter Movements / Men's Rights

This is originally posted on the Talk:Feminism page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lesbophobia

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

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

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

[edit] Too long.

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

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

[edit] Deprogragramming

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

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


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

Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History By Philip Jenkins p206
The Future of New Religious Movements By David G. Bromley, Phillip E. Hammond p116
Understanding Social Problems By Linda A. Mooney, Caroline Schacht, David Knox p237

Sfacets 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Scientology

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

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

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

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

[edit] Polygamy

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

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

[edit] Template too long

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

[edit] Isolationism

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

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

[edit] Regarding the dispute on 'Counter-discriminatory'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just noticed Matt's ES on Template:Discriminationfooter:

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

This is a misimplication. "Counter-discrimination" is not prima facie necessarily good or bad compared to standard discrimination and nothing is implied by the terms. There is no POV in saying that something is counter to something else unless you have already applied POV to that something else. - Keith D. Tyler 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not interested in arguing with any editors here over what we consider discrimination, or meanings of the term, or whether anything that involves discriminating between two different categories of things at all belongs on this template. On the articles themselves, these topics are described as controversial; it is noted that opponents frequently c call them discriminatory, but the articles themselves do not term them such. It is merely sufficient for you to understand, Matt, that your definition of Affirmative Action et all as discriminatory practices is (as noted on the relevant articles) controversial and not widely accepted. Therefore, it is inappropriate to call them discriminatory via templates. Counter-discriminatory, meanwhile, simply means a practice intended to counter discrimination; it is noncontroversial. If you want the template to call affirmative action discriminatory, you must provide sources that it is universally seen as such, and rewrite the articles as appropriate. Your own semantic arguments carry no weight. --Aquillion 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I should add: I am not particularly attached to 'counter discriminatory' as a term; that is merely what it was originally, and what I have been reverting it to. I do not think that there is serious room to argue that any of these topics can be grouped under discriminatory; the articles themselves plainly note that such a designation is controversial and used primarily by the program's opponents. But I would be open to any neutral term (simply categorizing them under related might be a good compromise for now; that much, at least, is non-controversial). --Aquillion 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that if the question of whether they are discriminatory or not is contested, then a third "category" is all the more suitable. With that in mind I'd like to see C-A remain. - Keith D. Tyler 23:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see what you all have written, and you make many good points. I still don't think "counter-discriminatory" is a good name for it (though it's far better than "positive discrimination" with regards to POV!), but I'm struggling to find a better one. Perhaps "related" is the best name for it (there may be a better one out there somewhere, but "related" is nuetral and clearly shows that affirmative action isn't in the same league as internment, for example). Would that be acceptable to everyone for now? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specieism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] RFC: deciding if specieism should be in the template

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Why this template is the wrong place for specieism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Equal Opportunity Employment

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

[edit] Black Legend

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

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

[edit] Image

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

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

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

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

[edit] Racial segregation

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

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


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


[edit] "General" & "Social"

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

I think you make a good point. how would you change it? futurebird 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


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

[edit] Against cultures

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Affirmative Action in the United States

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

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

[edit] Collapsible version

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

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

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

[edit] Cultures and beliefs

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

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