Template talk:Discrimination

Anti-Austrian sentiment and the like[edit]

@Doublah: Articles like Anti-Austrian sentiment have not been on the list for more than a year. I was the one to remove some of them, and I checked each and every one before removing it. I could not find serious instances of discrimination in any of them. Opposition to the politics of a government is something very different from discrimination. I think we should stick to real discrimination like racism, antisemitism, homophobia, religious persecution, and similar crimes. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear to me that any page that has the Discrimination sidebar template is about discrimination which pages like Anti-English sentiment which you have removed do. If you don't think discrimination based on nationality belong in this template or count as "real discrimination" you should probably remove all nationalities. Doublah (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From our article on discrimination: Discrimination is the act of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people. Many of the anti-X-sentiment articles are about opposition to the government or the state. Chinese people in the U.S. have been discriminated against, but I really can't find much discrimination in anti-English sentiment. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kindly add Racialization as one of the Manifestations. 174.113.8.122 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Left guide (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dear Editors: I would like the editors to consider changing the word "manifestation" to "practice" in two tables on the Sexism page.

Change "Manifestations" to "Practices" in the top table: Part of a series on Discrimination.

Change "Manifestations" to "Practices" in the bottom table: Discrimination.

I think it would help improve clarity of complex concepts to the average reader.

I would also like the editors to consider changing the order of the list. Policies should immediately precede Practices. This would flow more logically into the next section, Countermeasures.

Thank you for your consideration. 2601:C2:1682:1B0:20A8:B6F1:6BB4:351B (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Also, this is not the correct place to request changes to the discrimination sidebar - see Template talk:Discrimination sidebar. Jamedeus (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Discrimination against transgender men back as a subtype of Transphobia, along with Non-binary and Transmisogyny. It was already in the Template:Discrimination sidebar, why was it removed? Skemous (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - it appears it just wasn’t here and the sidebar was transcluded from this list and so it dropped off. Added now. Raladic (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No links to any technological discrimination?[edit]

@Rsk6400: The current navbox lacks any links to 21st century technological/automation discrimination. My addition was reverted as we "shouldn't link to sections", but there is sufficient material for standalone topics in the near future. Proposed additions:

GobsPint (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose adding those topics, as long as there are stand-alone articles. I'd suggest: Wait for (or write) the articles, then add them to the template. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No kid zones[edit]

@Rsk6400: Reliable sources do describe no kid zones as discrimination. I disagree with your removal here [1]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the inclusion, but I saw that the article doesn't include this template, and an (admittedly superficial) survey of the references in the article didn't show me such sources. Would you mind adding some quotes and this template to the article ? Rsk6400 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: I'm a teacher, and so I have absolutely no sympathy for discrimination against (parents with) children. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This CNN source goes into the 2017 ruling about it [2]. This is a widespread phenomena where kids are banned and some areas even have "no senior" zones. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The ruling ... is not legally binding and critics say the ongoing popularity of no-kids zones highlights how hard it will be to change people’s mindsets." - If discrimination is prohibited by the constitution and there is only a non-binding ruling calling those zones "discrimination", that doesn't seem really convincing. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need something to be legally prohibited for it to count as discrimination. Excluding people based on their characteristics is generally what discrimination is about. The Washington Post article also goes into this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Discrimination#Age. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was not, that something had to be prohibited by law to be called so. My idea was that if in a state where rule-of-law works fairly well (like South Korea) discrimination is prohibited, and NKZ are not prohibited, it is doubtful that they should be called "discrimination". All in all: We need WP:RS, because WP:OR is against our guidelines. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm telling you that it's not OR. But I give up. Maybe someone else will understand what I mean by all this someday. I suppose my bar for inclusion in a template like this is much lower than yours. Describing no kid zones as discriminatory is common in reliable sources even if the situation is more complicated and not unanimous but that could describe other articles listed on the template as well. My understanding is that the human rights commission can't make legally binding decisions at all so I think their ruling on the matter is quite significant, especially since it mentions the constitution [3]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've included our disagreement at WP:3O because templates are a relatively niche area and I'd prefer a third opinion. [4] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Two reliable sources (CNN and Maeil Business Pulse) identify the Korean human rights authority's listing "No kid zone" as discriminative. Listing this article on the Discrimination template is not original research, as the topic is comparable to Ageism#Discrimination. See the second paragraph in that section describing results of children's responses to Children's Rights Alliance for England and the National Children's Bureau survey. Forms of discrimination need not be prohibited by law to qualify as discrimination. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]