mic_none

Template talk:Discrimination sidebar Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar

WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Template This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Anti-Catalanism and Anti-Chilean sentiment[edit]

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

Anti-Catalan discrimination has a long history.--Aristophile (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that it has a long history, and I personally know a very nice elderly Catalan who has suffered discrimination during Franco's dictatorship. But the article doesn't mention it. If the article could be improved, there would be no problem linking it. What about the article on Anti-Chilean sentiment ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear that the definition of discrimination limits it to practices within a nation that limits the rights of its own citizens based upon race, gender, national origin, or ethnicity. These practices may either be behaviors of private citizens or official actions of the government. The negative sentiments of the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another nation may have negative impacts, but it is not discrimination. Thus, anti-Catalan sentiments are likely discriminatory within Spain, but the Anti-Chilean sentiments among neighboring nation-states currently described in that article is not discrimination. There would have to be a significant community of Chileans within these other countries for the possibility of discrimination to exist.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now added some text about discrimination to Anti-Catalanism, so IMHO the problem has been solved. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesism merits inclusion in related topics.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

My apologies, I did not see that you'd moved Speciesism to "Related topics", which I agree is fine. A few things for future reference:
1) Please remember to assume good faith. Despite how you may feel, accusing others of pretending to be unbiased or calling the process ridiculous is really just projecting something in your imagination out into the world. When trying to edit Wikipedia, that kind of projection will get in your way every time. Best to keep a cool head and stick to the facts. And remember that everyone makes mistakes.
2) I get that dictionaries might seem like good references, but in fact we do not consider them a particularly authoritative kind of source. See the essay Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. Much preferred are statements by professional scholarly organizations like this one from the American Psychological Association: Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age or sexual orientation.[1] Also useful are internationally respected organizations like Amnesty International which specialize in the category of phenomena under discussion: Discrimination occurs when a person is unable to enjoy his or her human rights or other legal rights on an equal basis with others because of an unjustified distinction made in policy, law or treatment.[2]
3) Fringe topics can indeed be notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but that's a separate issue from whether a given topic belongs within a given category. Note also that sources may be more or less reliable, but when we call something "fringe" we're referring to the view, not the source.
4) While Oikophobia or Allophilia may not be well know topics, there doesn't appear to be anything problematic about their inclusion because they're consistent with mainstream definitions of discrimination which focus on concepts like "people" and "human rights". The issue with speciesism, on the other hand, is that it appears to break with that mainstream understanding of the category. For this reason there would have been a burden of proof involved if you'd insisted on adding it to "General forms". But since you were willing to compromise I think our work is done here.
Generalrelative (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Since our topic is discrimination, it seems more logical to look up "discrimination" in Merriam-Webster: "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people"[3]. (2) The discussion you mentioned above did not lead to a species section being added to Discrimination. (3) "moral progress" is not among the policies of Wikipedia. I personally hope that moral progress is possible with the help of education and correct information, hence the importance of WP:V.
And please: Stick to the talk page guidelines (see WP:TALK). I think, being concise is very helpful, using expressions like "ridiculous" or "beyond ironic" is not. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my comment before I saw Generalrelative's. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Speciesism has been included in the sidebar (under "Related topics"), I would assume that it's acceptable to re-include the sidebar in the speciesism article, unless anyone has any objections? Throughthemind (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I don't think it's a minority view anymore to include speciesism under discrimination. Scholarly sources increasingly define speciesism as a form of discrimination. Even the scholarly bodies that define discrimination in terms of humans, such as the American Psychological Association that User:Generalrelative pointed out earlier, in their own definition to the term speciesism, say it's a discrimination against non-human animals: speciesism n. discriminatory, prejudicial, or exploitative practices against nonhuman animals, often on the basis of an assumption of human superiority.American Psychological Association Dictionary of Psychology [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasnaboy (talkcontribs) 10:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree. Regarding the use of dictionaries, Generalrelative already cautioned us. I still hold that we should not look for definitions of speciesism, but of discrimination. Please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-American sentiment[edit]

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