Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Exercise Caution

I am a very qualified person to talk about discrimination, and by definition, this venture is flawed from the outset and can only ever precipitate more discrimination. The inconvenience obviously lies with the fact that wikipedia was supposed to be an open website allowing anyone to edit. Obviously this is not actually the case, but with this in mind, any attempt at regulation, especially on the basis of something as heated as discrimination, is inadvisable. This "project" is made up of people with different viewpoints. The vast majority of them will be pro-feminist anti-male pro-black pro-multiculturalists who think the N word is deplorable but "white trash" and "bum" perfectly acceptable. Because someone has signed up to wikipedia, that does not qualify them in the least to have a valid perspective of the subject in question. Most of you are probably what I just described, the majority will be extremist Antifa, and if anything, this is the very way that all discrimination starts.

There can only be one solution: allow everyone to edit with immediate effect. The whole point in the internet is that it is an anarchy where people are equal. Introducing regulation, editing priviliges and page locking make a mockery of the entire wikipedia vision.

In summary, the most likely people to discriminate are the Antifa themselves. What you are doing here is creating a group for them.

80.65.242.154 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great to see the project up and running!

Great to see the project up and running! --Kukini hablame aqui 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banner template

Made a basic banner template for {{WikiProject Discrimination}}:


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.

I don't have time to figure out the poorly-documented advanced format, so if someone is more experienced at that, they should go ahead and improve the template. - Keith D. Tyler 20:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Added shortcut at {{WPDISC}}. - Keith D. Tyler 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've started adding to talk pages on the discrimination template. So far I'm through the "Against Cultures" section. Benjiboi 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination template too long, too broad?

The Discrimination template is a bit too long and too broad and although I'm not terribly bothered by either of those issues it's being removed from articles for those reasons. Perhaps an abbreviated version for articles where it's length is an issue would be appropriate? Benjiboi 00:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree...it really is so long that it is likely to rearrange pictures on some of the articles where it might be placed. --Kukini hablame aqui 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Guaranteed it has already. When i have some time I'll work on getting the banner on talk pages which is less intrusive and problematic for those who are sensitive to articles being labeled in possibly unflattering ways. Benjiboi 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well put. I agree that the talk page banner is a good idea. Definitely until the template is shrunk a bit. Kukini hablame aqui 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on adding both the template to all articles and the banner to all talk pages and then hopefully a mini-template version will emerge than can replace the template's removed. As a next step i'm happy to add some categories of discrimination, do we have any or a list to use that are mpst appropriate? Benjiboi 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Discrimination's sectional divisions might be a good start. - Keith D. Tyler 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My early version of {{Discrimination}} was a smaller horizontal thing. The problem I had with short vs. long template is that it seems usually the short articles are the ones that don't like the regular template's length, but those are also the more obscure or less traveled topics, which are less likely to appear in a shortened version of the topical template -- and it seems odd to me to add a topical template within which the article doesn't appear. - Keith D. Tyler 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like the move blew away the history. I'll go beg for a history undelete. - Keith D. Tyler 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
See the original, and the last version, for the original horizontal format. This may be a good start for a "short" template. A hide/show might also be helpful. - Keith D. Tyler 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. The shorter articles haven't seemed to balk at the huge template. It's the very developed articles, presumably with folks who feel invested in their works, that have found (mostly valid) reasons to removed the huge long template. One idea that might be an elegant solution is to not remove any of the template info but to create an alternative horizontal template that can be anchored at the bottom of an article (for those articles that are overly sensitive to inclusion). Benjiboi 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible advanced feature could be that a horizontal template has one of those "click to show" buttons so the intial box simply states "This article is part of WP Discrimination", etc. with a mini-logo and if you click it the box unfolds to reveal the sections and listings. Benjiboi 22:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple draft. I don't know how to do the hide/show thing and can't find any doc on it. - Keith D. Tyler 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A good start! I removed some line breaks and would have tried justifying text to the left side to remove more length but I don't know how. I suggest left justifying all text after the main title. Also, if I see one of those hide/show I'll try to emulate or at least link to it. Benjiboi 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think left-side headings would help vertical length too. It could be done with simple table formatting like:
General forms Racism · Sexism · Ageism · Religious intolerance · Xenophobia
Specific forms

Social: Homophobia · Transphobia · Biphobia · Ableism · Sizeism · Heightism · Adultism · Gerontophobia · Misogyny · Misandry · Lookism · Classism · Elitism
Against cultures: Americans · Arabs · Armenians · Australians · Canadians · Catalans · Chinese · English · Europeans · French · Germans · Indians · Iranians · Irish · Italians · Japanese ...


...but I'm sure there's better ways (e.g. a cssified template). WP's template glut always leaves me swimming. - Keith D. Tyler 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I find the above example quite helpful and it seems to help organize the material as well, go for it!


OK, after some digging I found WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes [1] that seems to have code and examples, etc of some template solutions that might greatlt help this effort. Benjiboi 00:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to remove the ginormous discrimination template from a page I was working on, but dropped by to see if there was a smaller horizontal one yet. I have some experience making templates so I was bold and put my proposal up at Template:Discriminationfooter. It's collapsible, in a table form, and (I think) well-organized. The content is the same as the vertical box. BTW my template of choice for making these is Template:Navbox generic. Calliopejen1 13:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh... I had just about done all the learning to make {{Discrimination/Horizontal}} to do all of this. I like {{Discriminationfooter}} better, though. :) Thanks - Keith D. Tyler 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Image:1943 Colored Waiting Room Sign.jpg would probably more accurately depict discrimination. Who knows what the fist is supposed to represent. So I propose replaving the fist image on the userbox and wikiproject banner with the image I mentioned above. Any objections?--SefringleTalk 03:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The fist, to me, was somewhat powerful and I feel was pretty good except the somewhat cross-like symbol in the palm of the hand, it also represents a more masculine and fighting (presumably for rights) stance which to a degree negates women, feminism and cooperative collaboration although I easily could be reading waaaay too much into it. The "Colored Waiting Room Sign" image is OK except it seems very US-centric and will be lost on those not familiar with Jim Crow laws which makes it great for articles on racism however not so ggod for all the rest. Benjiboi 06:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a symbol for "justice," as in social justice? Not sure what that might be. I prefer the fist over the colored waiting sign, though. --Kukini hablame aqui 06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Justice would be bad, as that would simbolize that discrimination is somehow "just." The problem with the fist is the symbolism is very abstract. It could easily be interprited some other way. The symbolism isn't clear by looking at that image. I think the image should be of something that clearly represents discrimination. I think most people who know about discrimination and are intrested in the topic would be familiar with the jim crow laws. --SefringleTalk 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree that whatever image should be easily interpreted as discrimination but disagree that Jim Crow laws are familiar. It's a subject known basically to those who are taught it and even that coverage is spotty. It's alos US-centric which I find problematic in that discrimination is a broad subject beyond borders. Benjiboi 05:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I see...I didn't realize that the group preferred to focus on injustice than social justice. I guess I tend to think of the black panther movement (which I think of when I see that fist), as an effort towards bringing social justice to those who experience discrimination. Kukini hablame aqui 05:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that social justice is out of scope, I just think that the scope is way beyond 1950s/60s U.S. black/white segregation. (I would half expect that someone not familiar with U.S. mid-20C history would see the sign "Colored Waiting Room" and ask, "what color is it then?") The raised fist has been used by a number of groups as a symbol of struggle, often against discrimination (see e.g. my comment below), so it's the best non-specific symbol I can find. Incidentally, as explained on Image:Fist.png, this particular image seems to have started with SDS. - Keith D. Tyler 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A sign saying "colored" only illustrates American black/white racism, and of a certain era at that. As for the fist not including women, I'm not so sure. - Keith D. Tyler 06:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Just based on the worst of what the raised fist represents (militant leftist movements that carried out executions of tens of thousands of civilians during the 20th century--executions based on religious and class affiliations) that image has to go. For crying out loud, militants have flashed the salute after shooting nuns just because they were members of the clergy. 154.20.253.36 01:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I wretch a bit at editors who seem to be hiding behind an anonymous IP this comment at at least slightly valid. The raised fist generally is a show of solidarity against discrimination but there is an implied message of violence which is what I was trying to get at with my earlier feminism comment. This is a new project so instant ideal image shouldn't be expected. I keep thinking justice or equality would help but I'm not coming up with any great alternative. Benjiboi 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"...I wretch a bit at editors who seem to be hiding behind an anonymous IP..." And I wretch a bit at baseless accusations from people who seem to be paranoid. The reason why I will not register for this site is because Wikipedia is such a gong show of drama, and this part of your comment is a perfect example of the kind of garbage I avoid by keeping my involvement with this site to a minimum. As for the rest of your comment, I see where you are coming from. 154.20.253.36 11:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I retch a bit at editors who perpetuate homonymous grammar errors. :) As for the notion that the fist is invalid because it has been used by some violent organizations, I don't believe that misappropriation results in unsuitability. By that rationale, the cross should be removed from use in Christianity templates because of its use in the Crusades and other wars. - Keith D. Tyler 20:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And I retch a bit at people who point out grammar and spelling errors on the Internet. The raised fist is invalid because it has been used by violently discriminatory (!) organizations, and a damn lot of of them at that (in various Red Terrors and revolutions of the 20th century), and yet it is somehow now the symbol of anti-discrimination. Exactly How often is the Christian cross used by anti-Christian organizations? Was it used during the 20th century to kill a few hundred thousand Christians, or did I miss something in your comparison? Honestly, sometimes when I see the raised fist I see nothing but leftist militants who want to kill other people because of their economic class and religion. We might as well use the Roman salute. It represents basically the same thing. 154.20.253.36 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
O dear, my karma hit your dogma. Anyhoo, dramatical expositions aside, do you have any constuctive alternative ideas? There does seem to be interest in findng a better image but now we need to consider alternatives. Suggestions, ideas? Benjiboi 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what does karma or dogma have to do with anything? Or are you just trying to offer a slight of some kind? (In that case, nice try, but I'm not a Catholic--I just happen to remember when Catholics get slaughtered.) Having no image at all would be a step up from the fist (which in no way at all ever underwent any kind of "misappropriation"--it was popularized by the anarchists and communists who carried out the mass murders I mentioned ealier). I say we just remove the image and put up something better when it comes along. The segregation image would be better, and my vote is with that one. 154.20.253.36 22:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The raised fist, as a symbol, conjures up a whole different set of images and feelings depending on what country you are from. I understand that in the United States it might have different associations (i.e. Black Power?) than in my country--and in some countries where I have been the associations are quite "dramatical". Please keep that in mind. 154.20.253.36 22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Pr032206a 1.jpg
Some commanders of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in the Colombian armed conflict (1960s–present).
I'm sensitive to the objections raise by the anonymous editor, but I think she/he exaggerates more than a little. Outside the Spanish Civil War (a war they didn't start), the groups associated with the clenched fist never killed more than a hundred or so people between them (if that many), and most never killed a single person.
Latin America. That's all I'm going to say. 154.20.253.36 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, she/he raises an important point. The symbol is loaded with meaning, and it's generally not "we are opposed to discrimination" but rather "we will take power", "we're more powerful together (as a fist) than we are as individuals (fingers)", or simply "we defy you". I think we should try to find a better image.
Here are some thoughts: (a) I love the "Colored waiting room sign", but it's very US-specific. (b) Can we find a picture of a sign or ad that says "No Irish need apply"? At least that's common to the US and England (and elsewhere?). (c) Likewise, a picture of a sign or ad that illustrates sexism or some other universal form of discrimination. (d) If somebody is handy with Photoshop, maybe she/he could put together a collage with different discriminatory images: examples of types of discrimination (racial/sexual/LGBT/etc.) or examples of discrimination in different places (Europe/North America/Africa/Asia/etc.). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've found an image that might work, but not sure of licensing, etc issues. It shows a water cooler for "white" with a smaller separate one on the side for "colored." [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs)

I fear that all of these suggestions are far too specific and any image to represent the project or Discrimination should be as broadly applicable as possible. There are some on istockphoto that are decent, but their usage terms are unsuitable. - Keith D. Tyler 01:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesism

I've always been a little unsure about the inclusion of speciesism on the template, and wonder if it is worthwhile to make it clear that this project's scope is limited to discrimination among humans, or perhaps sentient beings (just in case, though some would find that arguable). It may seem silly to some, but I don't think we want creep from animal rights topics, either. This is simply a different topic area than that. - Keith D. Tyler 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be removed.--SefringleTalk 21:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert but i do feel it has its place and might help expand understanding of what discrimination is. Benjiboi 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? There is serious doubt as to whether it really can be considered a form of discrimination. Please read the article. Only ism's that are known to be discrimination should be on the template.--SefringleTalk 04:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree that it isn't a form of discrimination, I just think that including it in the scope will make the scope impossibly broad. It's fair to say that the predominant understanding of the word "discrimination" as a sociological topic is human-to-human. (The word "animal" appears nowhere at Discrimination.) Best place for it is a mention in Related Topics, but not elevated to a level with racism and sexism and the other human-to-human fare. - Keith D. Tyler 17:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove then based on not being too broad. Benjiboi 22:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic discrimination -- when does it exist and not exist?

There is an increasing trend of AFDs against ethnic discrimination topics, so much so that it has its own hit list of sorts. Deletion is supported by such notions as "bad title" or some sort of implied WP:SYNTH, as if listing evidence of prejudice in an article about that prejudice is a synthesis to prove that the prejudice cataloged exists. But there are also shifting standards, where some will vote against e.g. estophobia while voting to keep russophobia or serbophobia under conflicting arguments. Many flatly state that all articles on anti-ethnicity discrimination should be nuked. I won't flatly defend all ethnic discrimination articles, but I don't agree that ethnic discrimination topics are all invalid. Ethnic discrimination exists, is frequently catalogable, and in turn encyclopedic. Much of these articles need cleanup. (I have issue with the trend where often more energy is spent in arguing AFDs than on improving articles.)

I suggest a few things.

  • Keep an eye on that list and defend, where there is legitimate reason, ethnic discrimination articles.
  • Direct energies towards articles on AFD. Provide cites for everything wherever possible.

I think we should start with Russophobia. - Keith D. Tyler 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I too have noted that this is a problem...it seems that those who do not want any light shed on the existence of discrimination are set on keeping articles on the subject out of wikipedia. We need to take particular care to make sure that all discrimination articles are well cited. --Kukini hablame aqui 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Always AGF. - Keith D. Tyler 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Until we have a more formal process please post deletion alerts so those interested can add to the discussion. Another idea that might help would be for us to consider two articles a month that need attention with a brief on what attention is helpful ("article needs sources to avoid AfD," "article seems overtly POV and needs wikifying" etc.). Seems like these might be easy enough to implement and might keep us more proactive than reactive. Benjiboi 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Fabulous idea, Benjiboi! Create it and link it to the project. Build it, and they will come. Kukini hablame aqui 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am not advocating focusing on AFD fighting. Improving articles is the goal. - Keith D. Tyler 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. A kindly suggestion then, can this page get a bit of a face-life ala Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, I know they have a couple of very talented geeks who do most of the formatting but they might let us copy them! That way we could all watch this snazzy page and when an alert or request for help comes in it's in one place and easy to find and clearly labelled. Along the same lines the "things you can do" section could simply point folks to the collaboration du jour and the discussion where new issues are presented. Benjiboi 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. :) - Keith D. Tyler 17:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
When in Rome ... Benjiboi 00:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for contribution from editors with Human rights background

This pertains to two articles: (1) Sam Harris (author) and (2) Ethnic profiling/Racial profiling. I figure that both of these are related to the topic of Discrimination and so I am posting this request here. Any contribution either to the articles or their talk pages would be appreciated.

[edit] Sam Harris (author)

Harris is a notable public intellectual because of criticism of religion, specifically Islam in the post 9/11 context. He has argued that Islam is the greatest threat to world peace of all religions and drawn specific conclusions from this in regard ethics, law and foreign policy.

A while back I came across an article by Sam Harris which advocated torture and "ethnic profiling" for Muslims in the context of the "war on terror". As I began to read more of Harris' work I went to his Wikipedia page to get a bit more background on him. I found that the page made no mention of his biography or controversial views on human rights issues and his support for torture and ethnic/racial profiling, which in my opinion are extremely relevant to any assessment of his ideas given that he has argued for differential/discriminatory treatment of Muslims and other groups based on their aleged moral inferiority and violent ideology.

I therefore edited the page to include more detail about the context for Harri's critical reception, his positions regarding Islam, the war on terror, torture and racial profiling with quotes from the articles where he takes positions on these matters.

Initially this brought me into a dispute with another contributor the self appointed editor of the page who deleted my additions. Rather than enter into an edit war I agreed to let the other editor incorporate my contributions into the article his way, but the resulting edit was very Weasel worded, de-emphasizing Harris' position on torture and ethnic/racial profiling and removing quotes that distinguished what were allegations made by Harris from more verifiable evidence. For instance, in the subsection on Islam, Lawrence's edit to my original contribution reads as follows: “Muslims must be prepared to accept ethnic profiling as a tool in the fight against terrorism, so long as adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behavior.” However, by removing the quotations I contributed from the The Huffington Post article that is the source here, his edit implies that it is a fact, independent of Harris’ unsupported assertion, that adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behaviour, and this is at the very least a matter of controversy. The whole article is similarly skewed and were I to attempt a rewrite on my own I would surely provoke an edit war.

[edit] Racial Profiling

Given that Harris is an advocate of profiling Muslims, I also noticed that the page on racial profiling is continually under assault by pro-racial profiling contributors and is of ever deteriorating quality due to POV bias in favor of profiling. I understand the basic issues but don't feel qualified to edit this extensively. I added a link to Harris page but that has been deleted. This page needs a lot of attention.

Thanks very much, --Betamod 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't yet gotten a response I want to suggest asking for admin help to protect against vandalism. I think it's possible to get basic protection so only registered users can do edits and then, with time of course, problem edits can be tracked for repeated violations. I've found that some editors don't have have great intentions but some actually are well-meaning but are not aware or don't comprehend how to collaborate and make meaningful edits vs. simply deleting whole sections or ideas they don't think belong. I've also learned the absolute best way to slow vandalism is make good edits yourself citing good sources so that almost any editor and admins can see that vandals are damaging good work and not simply disagreeing. Anyway I hope that helps some. Benjiboi

[edit] Request for an informal peer review

Hi all, I've been rewriting Feminism over the last few weeks and I've just put the changes up. Th goal is to fist bring the article into summary style, then up to good article status and hopefuly on to featured status. I'd like some outside views on the page - any and all views are requested--Cailil talk 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] more complex project template

HI all I noticed that the current template doesn't incorporate the WP:1.0 code for rating articles. I've made a version of the current template to include the WP 1.0 articles ratings at User:Cailil/cailil_sandbox_6. Has anyone got an opinion on it?--Cailil talk 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you show it with a class denoted? Benjiboi 05:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if you go here you'll see it rating a page at B class. Feel free to mess about with it--Cailil talk 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White pride

I noticed that the above page has been recently included in WikiProject Discrimination. Why is this page included in a discrimination project, and the corresponding black pride article is associated with a positive wikiproject dealing with contributions of those with African heritage? I'm not looking for a philosophical debate, as I am asking this question in a straight-forward manner from a procedural point of view. Does this project arbitrarily include any page it deems fit? I find the inclusion to be most POV, as I would if black pride, gay pride or any pride were associated with a project specifically dealing with discrimination. I believe it should be disassociated with this project, as the template on the article talk page shows an enormous amount of bias. the_undertow talk 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

White pride is a term generally used to imply racism, while black pride usuaully does not imply racism. Read the article. This is pretty clear within the article. Not all (ethnicity) pride articles imply racism, but white pride generally does.--SefringleTalk 00:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
'Generally?' The article states that many perceive it to be racist. What many perceive does not interest me. It's opinion, or the perception of an arbitrary number of people. Secondly, even if I was to agree that it is racist, how does that fall under the discrimination project? Not every racist discriminates, and not every act of discrimination has to do with race. It's an interesting project but you're going on a tangent by tagging this article. John Wayne and Walt Disney, both admitted racists, would most likely be candidates to be tagged, and since pride is not equal to racism, and racism does not equal discrimination, I am strongly against haphazard tagging of articles that may push a certain agenda. How a project regarding discrimination will choose (or discriminate) between different 'pride' articles is beyond ironic. The tag should be removed for the talk page. the_undertow talk 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Racism is a form of discrimination- discrimination by race. You can notice the racism article also is within the scope of the discrimination wikiproject as well. Generally, racists aren't within the scope of this wikiproject, unless they are activists in racism.--SefringleTalk 05:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So you have tagged the other 'race' pages? I see not. Your argument that racism is in the scope of discrimination is arbitrary; an encyclopedia is not. Racism is not equal to discrimination. Racism is a belief - discrimination is an action. The 'sources' used in the white pride article are either dead or unreliable. You can't use a KKK website to promote altruism simply because their website mentions they are altruistic, nor benevolent, nor endorse toaster-ovens. You are using hate sites, which happen to advocate white pride, to define the article by virtue of the fact that one mentions the other. You need 3rd party sources. the_undertow talk 07:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by the page white pride being added to the project? I'm not seeing that. - Keith D. Tyler 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was added, and I removed the [3] template. the_undertow talk 10:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Black pride is generally about overcoming inequality. White pride is generally about justifying or exacerbating inequality. The difference between white pride and black pride is like the difference between a "men only" sign on a courtroom, and a "men only" sign on a washroom. Context is everything. 67.71.1.139 01:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosewood massacre expanded today

As a member of Wikiproject:Florida, I expanded the article on Rosewood today. It's almost B-class status, but needs a variety of more sources. That's something I can do in the future, but I wanted to make sure it got proper peer review. I'd like to see it with the header of several projects, including this one and African American history. I'll post over there too, if I can. Moni3 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

[edit] Category:Homophobia

Another editor and I have been .. discussing .. whether or not the Category:Homophobia belongs on articles about people - specifically Garry Bushell, but it looks like Anita Bryant, Bill Whatcott, Colin Ireland, Eric Robert Rudolph, Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford, Glenn Bahr, James Anderton, Jerry Falwell, Kevin Tebedo, Mike Mendoza, and Tony Marco are all there as well.

IMHO, with the exception of Bryant and Fallwell, none of these people should be there. First, people aren't homophobia. They may be homophobic, but they aren't a fear or aversion.

And it seems this incident has sparked another deletion discussion for the cat.

Anyway, thoughts anyone? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought: The way people are using AFD increasingly these days to counteract simple matters like bad behaviour or editing is really pissing me off. Nearly every AFD I find myself compelled to visit makes me upset. People misusing a cat, then go correct the misusers, don't go all deletionist over it. - Keith D. Tyler 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 14:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ABBA could use a review

The artcle ABBA makes many references to the two female members of the group as "girls". I believe that the article would be improved if all or very nearly all of these references were replaced with a better term. -- 201.19.20.38 18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians in the Discrimination WikiProject

Category:Wikipedians in the Discrimination WikiProject has been nominated for renaming to conform to the convention of Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject. The input of project members is invited, either here or at the CFD discussion, particularly as to whether Category:WikiProject Discrimination members or Category:WikiProject Discrimination participants is preferred. Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal?

As the complaints come in ever more over the length of Template:Discrimination, I propose a template split, tied back to a Discrimination Portal. So basically:

  1. Split the current template into:
    • Racial and ethnic discrimination template
    • Religious discrimination template
    • Sexual discrimination template
    • Physical discrimination template
    • A very-pared-down Discrimination for forms of discrimination not covered by the above
  2. Provide the expanded catalog of topics in a Portal

Is this feasible? Can we work on this? There's so many discrimination articles sometimes it seems overwhelming to do more than properly catalog them. Maybe this would help; encouraging focus on segments of discrimination. - Keith D. Tyler 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very reasonable idea and probably very workable too--Cailil talk 18:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a very basic Portal:Discrimination created. - Keith D. Tyler 06:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the topical templates, I discovered Template:Religious persecution already exists, which would seem to fit the 2nd suggested template above. We should coordinate with that existing template to fit into that spot. - Keith D. Tyler 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Discrmination project

While looking for pictures to place up on the new Portal:Discrimination, I noticed that there is a real lack of pictures in all but the very high-profile topics. I propose a image hunt... Let's find acceptable pictures for all Category:Discrimination and Category:Prejudices articles. - Keith D. Tyler 16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Portal and besides a lack of pictures I think its really coming on. Well done Keith. I've had a similar problem with a small amount of pictures in Category:Feminism too. I"m sure the other categories are suffering from the same issue as well--Cailil talk 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Collaboration: Indian Slavery

I've nominated the very short article on Indian Slavery for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. The article covers two continents and some 420 years of history, but lacks basic organization and a lot of relevant information. It deserves to be brought up to the caliber of other articles on Slavery, Slavery in the United States, and so on. You can vote for it at the improvement drive page. --Carwil 14:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology)

Hey all...you might want to look at this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White privilege (sociology). It is a second AfD on the subject. Perhaps we need to strengthen the article some more? --Kukini hablame aqui 16:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this wikiproject exists now. One year ago, there was nothing like it. I think wikipedia is generally good for keeping out blatant falsehoods. But because a lot of contributors are white, male, American, and economically secure, the perspectives of others can sometimes be rejected because they seem so unfamiliar. Thanks for your help on "white privilege". 67.71.1.139 01:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And another user assumes that I am a) white and b) racist. Thanks for stereotyping, but the fact of the matter is that that is a bad article and it needs to go. Jtrainor 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You take things too personally my friend. I was making a blanket statement about the demographics of wikipedia. And no one has accused you of being racist. 64.231.195.19 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WikiProject Discrimination

This should show every talk page with a banner. futurebird 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template_talk:Racism_topics#La_Raza.2C_Chicano_nationalism.2C_Mexica_Movement

Please help Wikipedia and depart from systemic bias. Regiment 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project scope

It would help if the project's scope were more clearly defined. Right now, I note that there is a proposal to merge Category:Discrimination with Category:Prejudices. The discussion is talking place at Category talk:Prejudices. I think any input from members of this project regarding this topic would be welcome. Also, I think it would greatly assist the project if it had a more clearly defined scope on its project page. I personally would favor having the scope of the project be the Category:Discrimination, but that's just one opinion. John Carter 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help on Article - Jim Crow laws

I was reading the Jim Crow laws article and noticed a possible problem in the section under Alabama. It has a law shown as "All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall not have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races." Notice the word not. I think that word shouldn't be there, but I was not able to verify it. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be a Jim Crow law. But I think it is a mistake. Thanks Mark @ DailyNetworks talk 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ghetto

This article needs help. I've made a bunch of changes to make the section on "the black ghetto" make a *little* more sense, but it is far from perfect. Could I get an editor or two over to this article to vet my changes and look for other nonsense? futurebird 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race of Ancient Egyptians

There is currently some controversy regarding the scope and title of the above article, and, potentially, other articles which may be related to the same subject. Editors interested in this project may be interested in that article as well. John Carter 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. futurebird 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Discrimination

There is a debate about if Specieism belongs on this template, please stop by and share your thoughts. futurebird 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination and Neutrality

Hello

I'm from the German Wikipedia. There's a big discussion about the Category Sexism and Category Heterosexism / Homophobia because of the topics discrimination and neutrality. The admins say this categories aren't possible, because they'll be transporting a western and not a neutral view in the articels, which are sorted in the categories. I wrote a lot of articles with the topic discrimination, but I'll end my work in wikipedia when this view of neutrality goes on. What do you think about it? (Please excuse my bad English) -- schwarze feder 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-discrimination law needs work

Does anyone have time to take a look at Anti-discrimination law? This could be a good overview article, but it's currently not much. Thanks, --Alynna (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with banner template

I came across the banner template for this wikiproject while visiting the article White Priviledge. I did a double-take.


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.

Has it occured to anyone that the image crossed out is of a white male? Given the charged environment that the wikiproject works in, might it be better to have something less pointed; something that is more demonstrative would help too. How about a field of five people, all colored blue, for instance, except one which is green and crossed out? I don't know any sort of graphical programing otherwise I'd give it a shot myselfErudy (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[I originally posted this above, not having seen the more recent post:] What is the icon in the banner above supposed to represent? It is a generic icon for "man" (i.e. as found in men's restrooms) and it is white, and there is a red "anti" circle and stroke through it. I can't possibly imagine a "women's" icon with an "anti" mark on it as the banner for a Wikiproject. Suggest the banner be changed and the odd, seemingly anti-male (and possibly anti-white) image removed. One would think those wary of discrimination would know better. Blackworm (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one seemingly disturbed by this, but apparently there is no interest from the members of this project to explain the rationale for the image, or to change it. Perhaps if someone started removing the banner from articles where it is found, on the basis that the banner promotes anti-male bias on Wikipedia, someone would take notice? Blackworm (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request to move White privilege (sociology) to White privilege

Please see the discussion at the talk page for white privilege: Talk:White_privilege_(sociology) [4] ... would definitely be helped by your participation. Profepstein (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR nomination

Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussion

This is a notice that the article entitled Fear of youth is being considered for deletion because there apparently is no such thing. • Freechild'sup? 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

There is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Airline sex discrimination policy over whether and where to move the article Airline sex discrimination policy, for which I have suggested a move but don't know where it should go. I'd appreciate it if anyone interested would take a look at the discussion and offer any suggestions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No class or importance scale

I noticed that this project doesn't have an importance or class scale. Is there a reason why this hasn't been created? Many other Wiki groups use it as an assessment mechanism to prioritize updated and group performance. Would someone be able to create it with this? Neagley (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I had proposed a version of the template with "class" ratings above - you can see it here - it uses the old symbol (the fist)--Cailil talk 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, I've proposed a new wikiproject for the creation of articles regarding specific prisons here. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)