Template talk:Discrimination2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Nationalism & Xenophobia

Nationalism is listed both at the top under general forms and at the bottom under other forms. I think it is more appropriate to just be listed under "other forms". Also Xenophobia seems to be related to racism and probably shouldn't be listed under general forms either. Perhaps put it as a more specific form of racism. KPalicz 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree!--Migospia 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Zionism

Ordinarily people who are anti-zionists are critical of the state of Israel. That anti-somethingism seems out of place here. (→Netscott) 06:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of those "critical" go as far as demanding it wiped off the map. By the same token, what is anti-americanism doing there? ←Humus sapiens ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing both, for several reasons. 1. anti-Americanism is just silly. That's not discrimination. It's completely out of place. 2. Even if anti-Americanism is included, Zionism is a political movement, not a nation, religion, race, ethnicity, or anything. 3. Antisemitism is already there. To include anti-Zionism is to say that this is an additional kind of discrimination in addition to anti-semitism. How is this true? 4. If it's controversial, my understanding is that it shouldn't be included. That means it shouldn't be there for the same reason Zionism shouldn't be there, even if many people think Zionism is discriminatory.Mackan79 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phobias

Unless someone can explain how phobias constitute discrimination, they should be removed from the template. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From Islamophobia: "defined as the phenomenon[1] of prejudice against or demonization of Muslims, which manifests itself in general negative attitudes, violence, harassment, discrimination, and stereotyping (particularly vilification in the media)."
But more seriously, there should be a specific discrimination templates for each major subfield, such as nationalist discrimination, and religious discrimination to name just two. --70.48.69.236 16:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
A phobia, even in its medical meaning, is arguably a discriminatory notion. But a topic's inclusion here has less to do with the medical definition of phobia and more to do with the accepted common meanings of the terms, such as homophobia. It sounds like you want to argue that homophobia and islamophobia, as defined on their articles, are not discriminatory, or are an "okay" form of discrimination that shouldn't be lumped in with the "bad" discriminations. That sounds fairly discriminatory to me. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

Isn't this a discrimination against a specific group rather than a general form? Perhaps the thought is that it doesn't fit into any of the general forms, but that's true for each of the other specific forms (discrimination against Hindus or Mormons could have any number of bases).Mackan79 14:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotas limiting college admissions in the 1930s and 1940s in the U.S. would seem relavant here. I'm going to add a link to antisemitism, if no one objects. --Uncle Ed 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's already there under Against cultures: Jews. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Profiling

This strikes me as more of an issue than a manifestation, perhaps like affirmative action, which is also technically discriminatory but similarly controversial/widely supported. Mackan79 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been documented. The question is to what extent it is it still a problem now in the USA. Also, think about it in a global context. It is alive and well with out a doubt in other countries.futurebird 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Racial/ethnic/etc. profiling is a manifestation of the associated forms of discrimination, often justified with a pseudolegitimacy rooted in stereotypes. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ERA

I think the ERA should be in italics because it was never passed. It's significance as a proposed anti-sexism law is not dimished, but I think the template should try not to suggest that it is an actual law. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

It should be included. "Demonization, delegitimization, and double standard" in attitudes toward Israel. These definitions of what has created an environment in which anti-Semitism has been legitimized for the first time since the Holocaust, have nothing to do with legitimate criticisms of Israel's policy, part of the normal course of international conversation. They are about singling out Israel as the root of all problems. They are about denying the right of the Jewish people to a home of their own. They are about exaggerating Israel's faults while minimizing or ignoring the far greater faults of others, such as at the Durban Conference in 2001, when the fact that Israel, the only society in the Middle East that is democratic and is governed by the rule of law, was singled out for its alleged "racism." --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism is there, under "Specific Forms - Against cultures - Jews". In that section, the targeted group is what is displayed (frankly, it saves a ton of space with the same result rather than having all those "Anti...ism" or "...ophobia" terms). - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aNTI-aFRICAN

considering the most oppressed people in the world are African why isnt there a specfic topic on Africa? And please dont dispute that the entire image of racism is African people getting run over by someone else.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What sort of change are you proposing?futurebird 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not divided by geographic region. Discrimination is worldwide and crosses cultures and boundaries and forms, and I don't see the point of separating it by continent. Doing so would subjugate discrimination such that anyone not interested in that continent would ignore that section. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black supremacy isn't racism.

Black supremacy isn't racism. It's a bigoted negative reaction to racism. Unless you're talking about when the moors ruled europe. Racism is more than mere prejudice. It is the combination of prejudice with power. futurebird 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Never-mind. I don't think we can fix this with a simple change. I see you have "Black supremacy" under "movements" that makes sense, though, honestly, I still find it strange to place it on par with white supremacy. White supremacy is responsible for thousands of lynchings, social strife that continues to this day and it was the ideology that legitimized slavery which killed millions and degraded the lives of tens of millions more. In contrast to that, black supremacy resulted in a few fits of violence at best. It was a desperate (somewhat misguided) attempt to regain a sense of humanity under unimaginable oppression. It's just not a "another kind of supremacy" I hope this makes sense... futurebird 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Being less violent doesn't make it less discriminatory. Supremacism is discrimination, whether or not it claims justification (all do, after all). Violence is not a criteria. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That makes more sense. futurebird 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table issues

Anyone know how to make the "Against cultures" table look less odd on the top row? What is going on there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs) 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] typo's, american-centrism

Hi! I made this edit, which I feel I have to explain:

  1. there were some typo's like the one raised here.
  2. second I felt that the list of organizations was too U.S.-centric, as they were all (or atleast most) American.
  3. finally, I felt that the list of issues would become unmanageable, since any conflict could be listed here: from gay marriage to class exploitation. There is no criterion for inclusion.

- C mon 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to come up with criteria for both. And I'd like to see non-US organizations, but I don't know any. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks on the template?

Is it just me or do others find a navigational template an inappropriate place to have redlinks as well? Aren't navigational templates meant to facilitate navigation of existing articles? I can understand to a certain extent folks' desire to encourage article creation but redlinks strike me as a big and unwarranted distraction on a navigational template. (→Netscott) 05:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks don't belong on a nav template. I don't know of a policy, but my BOLD/IAR sense says that a nav template is to help you find articles that exist, not ones that don't. Nuked. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long!

I want to remove this template from nationalism because it is far too big, the article already has an ideology template. Please consider pruning it.Paul111 12:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination's a big topic, coming in many different forms and with many results. I wonder if making it a little wider would help make it shorter. Compared to Template:Christianity, this is about 50% longer, but that one is 25% wider. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about a show/hide function? Sort of like Template:ScientologySeries, which is about the same length as Template:Christianity . - 3Laws 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism

How is nationalism discrimination?I say we delete that from it.Dermo69 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nationalism can be seen as a positive thing, since the rise of the nation state made possible the advancement of populations that were kept in peonage under feudalism. Chauvenism is a bad thing, but not a form of discrimination. --Tsunami Butler 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But then I come across anti-nationalism and it seems that, if anti-nationalism is an anti-discriminatory stance, that nationalism has affects of discrimination. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Nationalism in the form of a nation-state (one-people-one-country) usually become ethnocentric. Once ethnic nationalism reaches irrational people, it cause ethnic discrimination. However, Nationalism in the form of a multinational state (many-peoples-one-country) usually, though not always, become multicultural. If the federal government promote a federal identity carefully, those distinct peoples will build tolerance and acceptance. So, nationalism defends on whether it is a federal-identity nationalism or an ethnic-identity nationalism. - 3Laws 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lookism

It seems to me that "lookism" trivializes the template. --Tsunami Butler 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it? Is discrimination based on appearance not a form of discrimination? Would servers, flight attendants, actors, models, receptionists, etc. agree with you? What about fat acceptance or visual aspects of gerontophobia? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of homophobia

I took homophobia out of General Forms because it is not a general form, but a specific one (discrimination against homosexuals). It belongs in Specific Forms.

There is no catch-all term for "discrimination based on sexual orientation". If one did or does, it would be appropriate as a general form. For example, sexism can be anti-male or anti-female. Likewise racism can be anti-white, anti-black, anti-pick-a-crayon-from-the-box.

The ideal catch-all term in which homophobia would fit would also be adequate to include heterophobia, biphobia, monosexism, and probably even transphobia.

As discussed elsewhere, "sexual-orientationism" is far too unwieldy to suit, IMO. -Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Sexualism" term. However, some writers used it as "discrimination based on sexual orientation and sexual identity" (ie: anti-gay, anti-transsex, etc.) while some other writers used it as "anti-discrimination movement for sexual orientation and sexual identity" (ie: gay rights, transsex rights, etc.). The first definition has a morphology of sexism->sexualism, the second definition has a morphology of sexuality->sexualism (sexuality = sexual orientation + sexual identity). 3Laws 04:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sexualism doesn't give me a convincing answer. It's not matured as a term. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Another possiblity would be using more than a single word, such as "pansexual intorlerence" -- pansexual = asexual (celibate), heterosexual (straight), homosexual (gay), bisexual, etc. This would no longer make "religious intolerance" the only general form with more than one word. - 3Laws 03:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Islam, etc.

I took a second look at this article at the request of KeithTyler, and I still don't see it as being inherently discriminatory. The article mentions that Radical Islamists don't like "secular influences." I don't think this qualifies, and I also think that given the present political climate, we should err on the side of caution -- Muslims are being demonized today the way Jews were demonized in the 20th Century. We presently already have Fundamentalism on the template, which is more appropriate by way of being even-handed. If you can find a Muslim sect that is comparable to Kahanism, then put that one on the template.

I also agree with Skylab that the raised fist is not a recognized symbol with regard to discrimination. It tends to be a symbol of political violence, which I think is inappropriate. --Tsunami Butler 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Read it again. I see it refer to a fundamentalist fatwa that says "every Muslim who pleads for the suspension of the shari‘a is an apostate and can be killed. The killing of those apostates cannot be prosecuted under Islamic law because this killing is justified", an example of persecution of those who oppose fundamentalist rule and a triumphalist position on religion. And before recent vandalism, the article included "rejection of the equality of men and women" (i.e. sexism) as an issue. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image/symbol

Just to follow up with the comment by Tsunami Butler above, I had deleted the black fist symbol because it does not represent the topic of this template, which is discrimination. Another editor had re-added it with the edit note: "The raised fist is widely accepted symbol of group struggle." This template is not about "group struggle." It is about various forms of discrimination, therefore the black fist does not represent the topic of this template. It is better to have no image at all, than to have one that doesn't adequately represent the topic.Spylab 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Living as a member of a discriminated group is a struggle that is shared with the rest of that group. Ergo, group struggle. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The template is about discrimination, not struggle, ergo the black fist doesn't represent the topic. Spylab 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-discriminatory list is POV?

It seems to me that the inclusion of affirmative action and racial quotas in the list of "anti-discriminatory" policies is inappropriate POV. The dispute about those programs is precisely about whether they constitute discrimination. Putting them under "anti-discriminatory" is essentially saying that one side in a live political debate is correct. (I'm actually an affirmative action advocate, but that doesn't make my POV an NPOV.) Also, racial quotas have historically been tools of malicious discrimination and only certain quota programs from the past 50 years or so are even arguably anti-discrimination measures, so putting it under anti-discrimination reflects a kind of information bias in addition to the POV issues. Elliotreed 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so for racial quotas. I simply don't have enough info to disagree. But affirmative action specifically refers to a use of quotas or weighted criteria to amend for a pattern of discrimination, therefore it is anti-discriminatory, or perhaps counter-discriminatory, but with a reparational intent. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 01:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the discriminatory/anti-discriminatory oppositions could stand to be into more specific and neutral lists. As they are, they stand in violation of NPOV in some cases. Ecto 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Do you have any idea how else to split them? I'm not sure how it can be done without introducing inappropriate POV. Elliotreed 19:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No matter which path you choose, you don't avoid POV or contention. You could add a "counter-discriminatory" section, but that isn't going to eliminate contention. "Counter-discrimination" would seem like a neologism. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We could merge them into one alphabetical list for "discriminatory and anti-discriminatory policies" or something like that. It would be a kludge, but it would at least be an NPOV kludge. Elliotreed 20:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalism

Is fundamentalism really a "manifestation of discrimination" like the template states? Fundamentalism is just thinking that the fundamental tenants of a religion are true. Discrimination sometimes goes along with that, but it doesn't seem to be inherent. Ecto 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Elliotreed 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Atheism

What about a link to Discrimination against atheists? It's a part of the Discrimination series and is of decent length. If there is a valid reason for it's lack of inclusion I would like to hear it. --Terrx 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question. It completely belongs, but I'm seeing a few difficulties.
  • Not sure what to call it. Anti-atheism? I don't like placing the whole article name on the template.
  • Where to put it. It's neither a religion nor a culture, yet I'm not sure it fits in the "social groups" section, but no other section seems fitting.
- Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I recalled that the term "Religious Fundamentalism" includes discriminating people of other-religion, (which implies people of no-religion.) Conversely, "Irreligious Fundamentalism" includes discriminating people of faith. 3Laws 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... though that has been contentious, actually. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, one can always use basic morphemes "a-", "-theo-", and "-phobia" to construct "atheophobia". This follows the same morphology as islamphobia - 3Laws 07:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't advocate putting a neologism as a section heading. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"Atheophobia" is actually a loanword, after some digging. It entered the English language around 11th century (with the Normans) and fall out of usage around 17th century (in a linguistic purism movement). Very Interesting. To really have an anglo-pure term for "atheophobia" (aversion to the belief of no god), it would have to be "antiungodlore" (opposition to the doctrine of without god). Highglee to the pure anglospeechlore! - 3Laws 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disability?

Why isn't discrimination based on disabilities or disease included in this template? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already included: Ableism in the specific form; and Disability rights in the anti-discriminatory movement. - 3Laws 01:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be included as a general form not a social form of discrimination.--Migospia 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophobia

Why is Xenophobia included as a general form, I think it should be removed to social--Migospia 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal

May I suggest you all make this into a horizontal box, e.g. based on {{Navbox generic}}? It has far too much content for use as a vertical sidebar in any article which actually has images or other content that needs to go inline with the text. cab 23:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be horrible and confusing/hard for some--Migospia 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I did it for you, see {{Discrimination3}}. Adjust the line breaking, etc. as you wish. I strongly recommend moving away from horizontal templates as they disrupt the article layout. I don't see where you're coming from that this is "horrible" and "confusing/hard for some". cab 04:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)