| Revision as of 07:27, 8 September 2024 editHTGS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →Excluding some nationalities, while keeping others: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:28, 8 September 2024 edit undoHTGS (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 editsm →Excluding some nationalities, while keeping others: Remove accidental duplicate commentTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| ::::::::If you want to drop the topic that’s fine, but you don’t get to walk away {{em|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 ], 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. | ::::::::If you want to drop the topic that’s fine, but you don’t get to walk away {{em|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 ], 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.” | ::::::::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 ] with me, so we can settle the matter properly? |
::::::::If you’d rather not discuss further, are you interested in writing up an ] 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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 07:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::If you want to drop the topic that’s fine, but you don’t get to walk away {{em|and also}} enforce your own preferred version of the article. 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 ], 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 an inclusion criteria is usually neutral to interpretation, and does not typically say “we include the article when Rsk6400 says we should.” | |||
| ::::::::If you’d rather not discuss, 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. <span style="font-family:Avenir, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:5px;padding:.1em .4em;background:#faeded">]</span> (])</span> 07: |
||
| == Should we add an article == | == Should we add an article == | ||
Revision as of 07:28, 8 September 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discrimination template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
No links to any technological discrimination?
@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:
- Algorithmic bias
- Artificial intelligence
- Automated decision-making
- Machine learning
- Human–robot interaction
GobsPint (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
No kid zones
@Rsk6400: Reliable sources do describe no kid zones as discrimination. I disagree with your removal here . Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- This CNN source goes into the 2017 ruling about it . 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- See Discrimination#Age. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 . Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- "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)
- This CNN source goes into the 2017 ruling about it . 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)
- 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)
I've included our disagreement at WP:3O because templates are a relatively niche area and I'd prefer a third opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
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, French, and Russians. 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)
- There are multiple sources that describe discrimination and use the term "discrimination" in reference towards Germans, French, and Russians. 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)
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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:
- According to our article, discrimination is
- Do you believe that Anti-German sentiment (for example) contains some substantive content about discrimination? — HTGS (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Should we add an article
Should the article Triple oppression be added to the template, if so where? Considering oppression is in it as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atakes Ris (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: