Template talk:Discrimination

Excluding some nationalities, while keeping others

@Rsk6400 Is there some ulterior reason you have for removing some ethnicities from the template? In this edit you reverted my addition of Anti-French sentiment, but I notice that you have been removing a lot more than that for a while now, including British, German and Russian, etc. and your removals and the ongoing fight you’re taking on seem to have been ongoing since 2021 (Australian and Austrian).

Is there some standard of “discrimination” that we should be using here that is defined differently to the one used by these articles? Articles which often begin with wording like “Anti-Scottish sentiment is disdain, discrimination, or hatred for…” (another ethnicity you regard as facing no consequence of discrimination). I assume that, in your opinion, historical discrimination is not something we should link to from here?

It’s possible there are better approaches though; the navbox is already exceedingly large, maybe we should simply split off the ethnic and nationalist discrimination section to another template? — HTGS (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

We need the article to be about discrimination, and that means reliable sources have to use the word "discrimination". Powerful nations were mostly able to prevent discrimination against their nationals, so it should not seem very strange that e.g. "Anti-German sentiment" seldom led to discrimination. Personally, I also think that we should not be too quick to call something "discrimination" that is not in some degree comparable to Racism against African Americans or Antisemitism. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that describe discrimination and use the term "discrimination" in reference towards Germans[1][2][3], French[4][5][6][7], and Russians[8][9][10]. I don't see why African-Americans and Jews should be seen as the standard of discrimination; that's nothing more than an Anglo-American bias. Discrimination is discrimination. Alfedda (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

But these sources are not used in the articles. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who agrees with Rsk6400 on this? — HTGS (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This template should only include articles that contain some substantive content about discrimination. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 10:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe that Anti-German sentiment (for example) contains some substantive content about discrimination? — HTGS (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

According to our article, discrimination is Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation.. Where do you find that in the article ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that being German is not covered by that definition? Do you think nationality is not a group, class or other category? If I take your question at face value, I don’t have to go further than the first paragraph of the body to get: Anglo-Americans in the Pennsylvania Colony viewed the Palatines with suspicion and often derided their language, customs, and religious practices. This certainly counts as “making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people …”. — HTGS (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: Please stop edit warring and take a look at WP:ONUS. I don't think that's "substantive content". And where is the source calling that "discrimination" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring is a bit of a misrepresentation, @Rsk6400. I suggested a valid reason to include an article, and nobody had any rebuttal. I’m glad you’re willing to discuss though.

On the actual inclusion criteria, do you want to abandon the definition you gave above, and only include articles with sources that use the word discrimination explicitly? I think we can possibly work with that, but I don’t want to have to keep running around the field chasing after you and your goalposts. — HTGS (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I think our guideline on WP:OR is clear enough. And I also think that common sense says that a substantial part of an article linked here should be about discrimination. And, sorry to say, I'm not interested in an endless discussion. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want to drop the topic that’s fine, but you don’t get to walk away and also enforce your own preferred version of the template. I’m not looking to drag this out either, but you are somehow resisting the invitation to give a clear answer on how you include articles. Is it by the definition at Discrimination, or is it by sources using the exact word “discrimination”, or is it when a substantial part of the article is “about discrimination”? Of course it can’t be the last one alone, because that would require us to refer to either of the first options.

The standard inclusion criteria for this sort of list would be to include all articles that discuss the topic, even if by subjective evaluation they don’t seem equal between pages in the level of discrimination they describe. This would mean that for these pages, they are all titled “Anti-X sentiment” and all use the word ‘discrimination’ in their lead, and would all be included; the going presumption with this model would be that readers can evaluate for themselves whether the “discrimination” against Germans (e.g.) is actually real or meets their subjective standards. We don’t have to do that though. When that sort of measure is not preferred, we can come up with another inclusion criteria, but such criteria is usually neutral to interpretation, and does not usually say “we include the article when Rsk6400 says we should.”

If you’d rather not discuss further, are you interested in writing up an RfC with me, so we can settle the matter properly?

Or maybe there’s some other factor you haven’t been able to verbalize yet, like maybe you don’t like that discrimination against Germans in that article is historical, and not contemporary? I’m willing to discuss that as a limiting factor if that’s what’s getting you. — HTGS (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to start an RfC, if specifically about anti-German sentiment, it would be best to start it at that talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 I noticed you reverted my recent edit and left a passive-aggressive comment on my talk page. Is there a reason for this? I noticed you directed me to this page but the above conservation doesn’t show any consensus about applying your proposed “requirements” for what pages are allowed to be included, as if a page’s title being ‘anti-[ethnicity] sentiment’ doesn’t make it obvious the article is about discrimination.

Trying to say the page needs better sourcing like it’s being including in ITN is ridiculous, and reverting any edit against your agenda is in violation of WP:OWN; on the topic of rules, I don’t think calling Anti-German sentiment an article about discrimination is exactly violating WP:OR. This really should be taken to WP:RFC if you’re not willing to reach a settlement. —TwinBoo (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@TwinBoo: Reminding a fellow editor that they should use edit summaries is in no way aggressive. Myself, I'm thankful if somebody shows me how to improve my editing. I don't think that all "anti-X sentiment" articles are about discrimination. If an enslaved Black person in antebellum American South said that they hated all White people, is that discrimination ? Or, in Anti-German sentiment#In_Israel there is an example given of Israeli lawmakers who wouldn't listen to a speech given by the then German chancellor in German. Is this discrimination ? Furthermore, you added a lot of articles that don't use this template. In some of those articles this template was later added by an IP editor. You need consensus to change something, so feel free to start an RfC. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you even listening to yourself? A black person declaring they hate all white people is overwhelmingly discriminatory — as per Discrimination, “Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on […] race”, the same statement applies to the Israeli example. I’d expect you to at least have a rough idea what discrimination is if you’re going to police this page so heavily.

Also, regarding my statement on your passive-aggressive behaviour: Oxford Dictionary describes ‘passive-aggressive’ as a “behaviour characterised by indirect resistance to the demands of others and avoidance of direct confrontation.” I’d say leaving an unorthodox pre-typed message on my talk page after reverting my edit counts as avoiding confrontation. Seen as you’re not willing to settle this, I’ll create an RfC. —TwinBoo (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@TwinBoo: You started a faulty RfC with a question that has nothing to do with the things we disagree about. So, stop edit warring ! Rsk6400 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS: I didn't answer to you at the RfC, because it is obviously faulty. Of course, all articles detailing discrimination to certain ethnic groups (from that RfC) should be included here. But whether a certain article is about discrimination or not has to be decided by the editors of that article, i.e. on the talk page of the respective article. And, of course, we as editors have to be guided by reliable sources. According to WP:NOTEVERYTHING (especially WP:NOTDB) I don't think that we should have our readers waste their time by scrolling through a heap of unrelated stuff. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with most of your points here. But I would be happy to split off the section on ethnic groups to its own template if you just think length is the issue. — HTGS (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

I think Anti-Zionism should be replaced by New Antisemitism in the template, maybe like Antisemitism (New), with New linking to the article. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the template, it's kind of weird how they set it up. Why is it "Jewish / Antisemitism" and not just "Jewish"?

Here's what I think we should do: Replace "Jewish / Antisemitism (Anti-Zionism)" in the template with "Jewish (Antisemitism * New)". Then, we add Anti-Zionism to the "Manifestations" section. AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 04:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. @Arctic Circle System: I just undid your revisions for several reasons: (1) You changed the links to Antisemitism without taking this discussion into account. Since Jews are AFAIK the only group where the "anti-X" term (antisemitism) is etymologically totally unrelated, we should have both term (i.e. "Jewish" and "Antisemitism" in the link texts). (2) Don't know why Anti-Mormonism should be under "National". (3) We don't link categories here. (4) Don't think we should have each and every naming controversy here. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I like this solution as well Kowal2701 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the switch now. Thanks, you two :) AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 15:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like RSK6400 already made the edit. Thanks! AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 15:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2024

Need to change something Annoyingcomerade (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't specified the changes you wish to make. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC about ethnicity inclusion

There is an ongoing dispute about whether some articles detailing discrimination to certain ethnic groups (Anti-French sentiment, Anti-English sentiment, etc.) should be included in the template, the main argument against their inclusion being that sources should directly state whether the pages are about discrimination. Should these pages be included or not? —TwinBoo (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I was summoned by bot. The text of the RFC seems a bit "inside baseball". Are there specific elements that are under discussion. I can not tell from the text, even after reading the talk page content. If you wish outside, uninvolved input, please clarify. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 20:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC) —

Sorry about that, I got carried away writing and forgot to ask the actual question. It’s fixed now. —TwinBoo (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Wrong question, wrong place No, there is no dispute about whether some articles detailing discrimination belong here. Of course, all articles about discrimination should be linked here. The dispute is whether Anti-French sentiment and Anti-English sentiment are about discrimination or not. That can be discussed on the respective talk pages, but not here. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why do you think it's the wrong place? It's not the only template on RfC so I don't see what the issue is. --TwinBoo (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  For your question, this is the right place. But your question is not what we disagree about. Whether a certain article, e.g. Anti-French sentiment, is about discrimination, that's what has to be discussed on that article's talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you're suggesting I make an individual RfC on each page? --TwinBoo (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  From WP:RFCBEFORE: RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. What you can do, is choose a typical article, start a discussion there, and then see if you or I or third persons can learn enough from each other to reach a consensus which might extend to similar articles. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. The question at hand is whether this template should be changed. Therefore, the discussion should happen here. It's perfectly valid if you want to answer the question by saying "No, despite what you might have guessed from the title, the article on Anti-French sentiment isn't about ethnic discrimination, so it shouldn't be included", but the discussion about whether to add a link here should happen here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  For what it’s worth, I agree that there is no problem of venue here. It would not be appropriate to tour this discussion around every other article, forcing editors at each one to make a declaration on whether that article is about discrimination.

  Arguably we could collectively decide here, with this RFC, that our standard for inclusion here is that each article must declare itself “about discrimination”, but that would be a highly unusual setup for a navbox template. — HTGS (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• All articles which are clearly on the topic of “anti-<ethnicity or nationality or religious group> sentiment” should be included here. For example, the article on Anti-German sentiment is clearly about discriminatory attitudes towards that group. Whether the discrimination faced by Germans (modern or historical) rises to the level equivalent to Anti-Croat sentiment or Anti-Greek sentiment is not a question to be answered by editors at a navbox template. Navbox templates should simply direct readers to similar articles if they exist; they should not be hiding some articles because someone has decided that Germans don’t suffer discrimination the same as Greeks. If the article in question essentially says “Germans do not face much discrimination” then that’s fine, but the reader should discover that at the article, where the topic is discussed; they should not be prevented from finding that article among this list of similar articles. — HTGS (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nancy Mace's transphobic crusade

Here is 1 of many sources Rep. Nancy Mace's posts flagged for hateful conduct amid anti-transgender campaign Arbeiten8 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any specific people listed in this template because it's about the different kinds of discrimination generally. Various forms of LGBT+ discrimination are already included on this template. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your take on putting the US House resolutions article in the "Discriminatory policies" section of the template since 1 public policy (House bathroom ban) has been enacted while the national facilities ban policy is pending? Arbeiten8 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough to me, if you're linking to a ban instead of a person. Or is what you're trying to do a section in the article? If so, a piped link would be useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article currently named "Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act" is focused on 2 public policies on the basis of gender; how is a piped link such as "US Congress & national facilities ban"? I am open to suggestions especially short titles. Arbeiten8 (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking directly to the official name is fine, my suggestion for a piped link was if this was a section in a biography article that hadn't been developed into its own article yet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it to you to modify as you deem appropriate. Arbeiten8 (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on the matter, this is just my perspective. You don't need my permission to make edits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. I moved the article link down to the policies section. Arbeiten8 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

Add Untermensch in the Manifestations section. 67.209.128.177 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)