Template talk:Discrimination sidebar

Affirmative action.

Yep, It shore is teh very definition of discrimination, amirite?

Can we erase it, it just seems embarrassing and offensive.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Solved. It's a relevant article. I moved it into a new heading and added others I recognized at the moment as belonging with it. If others also belong, they too can be moved or added. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a lovely addition and I hope people get to add more to it.--66.233.55.145 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speciesism and proposal for new grouping

The article on discrimination says explicitly that discrimination happens between human beings. How does speciesism belong here? The edit-summary argument, that speciesism is "also about discrimination between speciesists and nonspeciesists" is a nonstarter. First of all the article on speciesism doesn't talk about that. Second of all, that wouldn't be speciesism, it'd be speciesismism. Write that article and we could have it in the sidebar.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree in part. You have a point (except for the linguistics, since duplicate-suffix forms don't generally survive). I probably won't research and add to either article on the issue. However, I think it would be good to add a grouping to the sidebar, further down, for topics related to discrimination, such as speciesism, and maybe I'll do that. I'll wait a week for any response. (I edited the talk topic/section heading to widen it.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was kidding about "speciesismism." A related topics grouping is a fine solution as far as I'm concerned. If you'd like to do it, go ahead (we seem to be the only editors who care right now). I'll follow your lead on the navbox afterwards.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait anyway, having promised to do so, but, meanwhile, do you have any ideas for what else should be in such a grouping? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My current plan is to move the list for Related Topics down and give that list its own heading, add speciesism to it, and move one or more of its topics back into discrimination lists. I don't think diversity is mainly a form of discrimination but religious persecution is, so the latter should be further up (and the problem of apparent duplication of that topic is solvable, too). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed a long time ago in the articles talk page history. Speciesism is a form of discrimination for this template. Many things on here are not always considered discrimination. I could tell you lots of people don't think adultism is. And a ton don't want homophobia on the list. I make no claims on whether or not it is always considered a form of discrimination but merely that it has been considered such. neuron2.net/papers/Speciesism.pdf masalladelaespecie.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/whatisspeciesism.pdf Even the speciesism article has a quote that calls speciesism discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The speciesism article does not in fact have a quote that calls speciesism discrimination. It has a quote from one person, not a secondary source, who makes an analogy between the two. Whether or not it was discussed before we can discuss it again. And who cares whether people don't want homophobia or adultism or whatever on the list, the substance of my argument is that, according to the WP article and every social science book I've ever read, discrimination happens *between* human beings. Please address the actual arguments being made if you want to join the conversation. Do you have some specific problem with the compromise worked out above?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just provided sources stating that speciesism is discrimination. And I must say that for the most part I actually agree that speciesism is not discrimination in the same fashion as the others. But when I look at animal cruelty what is the difference between that and child abuse? Speciesism should never be taken as more important than human discrimination but it still is considered by many to be discrimination. And what really defines discrimination are the social justice, civil rights and sociological organizations. I see no problem with a controversy being talked about or even it being put into the other forms section but it is not merely a related topic. It has been argued that is the same thing. Whether it is or isn't I guess is defined by your definition of discrimination which varies widely but it still has been called discrimination and should be addressed at least as being controversely called such not merely a related topic like slavery or police brutality.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If by sources you mean that one quote in the speciesism article, that's not a source, it's one guy's statement that speciesism is *analogous* to discrimination. If it's considered by many to be discrimination, find some sources that say it is discrimination. The difference between animal cruelty and child abuse is that one is being done to non-human animals and the other is being done to human beings. For all it matters here, animal cruelty may be worse than child abuse, it may be as bad, or it may be less bad. The issue is that discrimination happens among human beings by every relevant definition *and* the articles on both speciesism and discrimination. Please drop the red herrings about what's important. What's important is the sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I provided two website addresses above. You should really check them out. Both define clearly what specieism is. And at least one if not the other is an academic paper.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They don't seem like reliable sources to me. You want to take it to RSN and see what other people think about them? I can't find any reliable sources anywhere that support your position, and every single other article in that template is about interhuman interactions. I understand the analogy, but I don't think that it's more than an analogy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly taking this too literally. That quote was from the article was written by an expert in his field and the fact of the matter is that before speciesism was talked about discrimination was on interhuman but things change. At one time Eugenics was defined as a science. The fact of the matter is that the definition of discrimination as only applying to humans is being contested by many animal rights advocates. I'm not saing we should keep it on because it is always considered discrimination (it clearly isn't) but as I said above people contest that many others are discrimination "Adultism isn't discrimination. I have a right to hit my kids when they misbehave." or "Homophobia is not discrimination. It is fighting for our religious freedoms." If you want to you can put it into a controversial forms section but I think that all forms have been controversial so that wouldn't help.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So you don't think the sources are reliable for speciesism being discrimination? Your analogies are unconvincing, because they are all interhuman interactions. I agree with you that there are those who would argue that x-ism isn't discrimination, but that's not actually the conversation we're having here. I already think that having speciesism in the template at all is bad, but it seems that consensus on that is against me. Hence the compromise being discussed above, that it be included in the template as something related to discrimination. As you've already supplied a reliable source (the one from the speciesism article) that says it's analogous to discrimination, I think it's OK to say it's related to discrimination, but, really, by any actual definition in reliable sources that I've seen, it is not actually discrimination.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I plan to proceed with the solution already proposed and on the same schedule, because creating the separate heading is useful regardless of where speciesism is ultimately located. Generally, a navigation box can be somewhat more inclusive than its main article might be, since precision of a definition should be in an article, to be discovered by readers when they get there, so navigation boxes should bring people to where they can read about topical boundaries and not keep readers from the articles. Articles get edited about definitions more often, it seems, than navigation aids get edited to add and subtract articles according to changing definitions.

Speciesism seems to be the only article in its topical range. I can imagine distinctions between discriminating against all nonhumans, discriminating against all nonmammals, discriminating against all nonwalking animals, discriminating against all nonanimals, discriminating against all nonanimals and nonvegetables, and discriminating against all life forms. Putting aside what's a practicable belief system (one could argue that one should strive not to discriminate and thus have a rationale by which not to commit suicide for violation of a desire, and I think one less-well-known but long-lived religion objects to killing any life form, even bacteria, and there is a health point in favor of not killing all bacteria), ideals can be the subject of belief systems, which in turn can be classified. So speciesism could be a catch-all for a variety of discriminations by humans against, or not against, various categories of nonhumans. I don't know if Wikipedia has any article on any human-vs.-nonhuman discrimination other than speciesism. If not, and if good sourcing exists, such articles can be written and then added to the template. In the meantime, I think speciesism should be listed as a related subject and therefore in the template. If other articles already exist, they should all be linked to from the speciesism article and can also be listed in the template, unless there are too many, in which case the template may not have room for more than one plus a listing for a new template (not now existing, as far as I know) for speciesism-related articles; i.e., if there are too many, a new navigation template would be a good idea, to be added to speciesism-related articles, not to all discrimination articles.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think putting speiciesm back in with an * stating that it is controversial would be fine after all neuron2.net/papers/Speciesism.pdf and masalladelaespecie.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/whatisspeciesism.pdf both define it as discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Speciesism is in as of yesterday, and it's in the Related Topics list. To mark or list it as controversial is something that could be done to just about everything in the whole template. Navigation templates don't replace articles and shouldn't require duplicate editorial maintenance. Just conforming the two templates to each other, as I did yesterday and couldn't complete (as discussed in the Edit Summaries), was the result of maintenance not having been done by other editors earlier, so adding to that burden is cause for hestitation, I think. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

On keeping the template compact.

Genism for all intents and purposes is the same as Genetic Discrimination. The reason I think Genism should be used at in the template is simple, after you typed in genetic discrimination it became the largest link in the general section. Lets keep in mind that this template is already huge and keeping it compact (yet as complete as possible) is good.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should change a bunch of the other ones as well. Keeping the template compact seems less important to me than using words in it that actually mean something to the reader, which "genism" does not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How about if we change the wording of the group at the top of the template to say something like "based on" and then we can use e.g. "race", "color", "genetics", or whatever, and skip the neologisms. Some of the terms in there now are OK, but others make very little sense. "Genism" was bad, but "religionism" is ridiculous. If we adopt my suggestion the template will be even more compact probably, since we'll be able to exchange e.g. "religion" for "religionism".— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will agree to that if and only if you keep it consistent and make all of them that way. And remember that certains ones specifically racism and sexism define more than just what they sound like. Racism often applys to discrimination based not only on race but ethnicity and nationality as well and sexism dosn't only apply to sex (the physical characteristic of your body) but gender (how you see yourself).-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that "racism" is different from "discrimination based on race," so you don't want to shorten that one because it'd be inaccurate, but also that you only will agree to shortening any if all are shortened? I'm just trying to clarify what you're proposing here.

No I'm not saying that racism is different from "discrimination based on race" it is although technically it is more than that as well. Racism has been used to describe discrimination against Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, Gypsies and even national groups like the Irish or Canadians. This clearly shows that racism isn't only about race but also ethinicity and nationality. What I'm saying is that I will support you changeing Genism to Genotype with a link to the article on Genetic Discrimination if you change all others Ageism to Age, Classism to Class etc. I was only saying that racism and sexism will be difficult because they are technically partially misnomers because they include more than what they say they are. Antisemitism has the same probelm but in the reverse fashion. Antisemitism literally means discrimination or hatred of semites but usually today only refers to Jews. I could change it in my way to show you what I'm thinking and you could change it back or discuss it if you think that would help me explain it better.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How about if we change the name of the group to something like "types of discrimination" and then we can use adjectives like "racial", "genetic", and so on? That would be more consistent with the way that the articles are named. Also, are you adamant that compactness is the primary virtue? If so, perhaps it's not necessary to have a single system. If you'd like to change it to reflect your idea, please do so, so that we have something concrete to talk about.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I quite like your proposed changes, RoP. What do you think about changing the descriptor in the first section to "based on" rather than "general"? Also, do you have any objection to moving "pregnancy discrimination" up into the specific forms section? It seems more appropriate there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should remain general because that if we name it based on we will have to move from the specific section up. I think general really means that anyone can be affected its based on your race, gender etc. whereas specifics only affect specific groups. I have no problem however with pregnancy being moved up to the specific section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)