Template talk:Discrimination sidebar

There's no such thing as "Reverse racism"

Since racism is a form of discrimination over one's race, there could not be no "reverse" racism. I think the article "Reverse racism" itself is anti-white people discrimination, because it legitimizes the theses racism being a form of discrimination against non-white people by white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.146.95 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans and First Nations of Canada

@TenorTwelve: and other editors interesting in the topic of Discrimination:

The addition of this sidebar template to several articles within the topic of Native American mascots has one problem: Native Americans are generally absent from the topic of Discrimination. There is hidden within the "Manifestations" list a link to the main mascot article but called "Tribal caricature mascots", a terminology used nowhere else. Native Americans might be added to the list of Ethnic/national groups, but this would highlight the absence of other indigenous peoples who have become invisible in two contexts; not recognized as having a unique status either by the majority populations that discriminate against them nor as being a distinct group with their own issues by those opposing such discrimination.

This template appears to have a general problem regarding categorization, which indicates that it needs the attention of an expert on the topic, which I do not consider myself to be. As a general expert in the social sciences I think of racism, discrimination, and prejudice as having different meanings which overlap, but are not conceptually identical. In particular the lingering animosity between members of nation-states that have a history of conflict are different than the continued discrimination against ethnic groups within one nation having a history of colonialism. For example, there is a link to the article regarding anti-Australian attitudes among Indonesians, yet I see no link to an article regarding the indigenous people of Australia.

It is disappointing for me to see that editors have been spending time having a completely off-topic discussion regarding the inclusion of non-humans within this topic while the inclusion of indigenous peoples goes unaddressed.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Thanks for asking about Indigenous Peoples. In response to your last sentence: There was a discussion about speciesism here because there was an advocate for its inclusion, which was opposed, and that opposition became an edit war, which led to a discussion here. That's just the way it goes with controversy on Wikipedia; it doesn't mean that animals are more important here than Indigenous Peoples, only that animals were controversial at some point in time. In contrast, I don't see anything controversial about adding discrimination against Indigenous Peoples to this template.

I suspect the reason why Indigenous Peoples are not more prominent in this template is due to a lack of article-level coverage of discrimination against them. Per WP:NAVBOX, navigation templates are for links between articles. In contrast, for example, the following are sections, not articles:

• Indigenous peoples § Racism and discrimination
• Contemporary Native American issues in the United States § Societal discrimination and racism

However, Stereotypes of indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States is a relevant article, so I added it to the ethnic/national section. If you find other relevant articles, please add them. Biogeographist (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catalanism and Anti-Chilean sentiment

@Lute88: I removed the links to these two articles because neither of them covers discrimination, at least not in the sense of the excellent list given by Chrisahn above. Also, please remember that any changes made to this template should also be made to Template:Discrimination which contains the navbar corresponding to this sidebar. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catalan discrimination has a long history.--Aristophile (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that it has a long history, and I personally know a very nice elderly Catalan who has suffered discrimination during Franco's dictatorship. But the article doesn't mention it. If the article could be improved, there would be no problem linking it. What about the article on Anti-Chilean sentiment ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear that the definition of discrimination limits it to practices within a nation that limits the rights of its own citizens based upon race, gender, national origin, or ethnicity. These practices may either be behaviors of private citizens or official actions of the government. The negative sentiments of the citizens of one nation against the citizens of another nation may have negative impacts, but it is not discrimination. Thus, anti-Catalan sentiments are likely discriminatory within Spain, but the Anti-Chilean sentiments among neighboring nation-states currently described in that article is not discrimination. There would have to be a significant community of Chileans within these other countries for the possibility of discrimination to exist.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I now added some text about discrimination to Anti-Catalanism, so IMHO the problem has been solved. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Speciesism merits inclusion in related topics.

So there have been people who object to Speciesism going under "General forms" for being a minority view, I've explained that it's almost true by definition that many forms of discrimination will have been and indeed still are considered "minority views," but fair enough. Now, how is speciesism not even a related topic when it is discussed in the main article for discrimination itself?

First off, there is plenty of verification that though thinking Speciesism is a form of discrimination is a minority view, it is not "fringe," and claiming that it is so is just pushing an agenda using a very loaded term. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination#Theories_and_philosophy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism#Spread_of_the_idea. The latter shows how the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is literally "discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority." Is the OED now a fringe publication? How about Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciesism. "Definition of speciesism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on species especially: discrimination against animals." Is Merriam-Webster now a fringe publication too? This is getting ridiculous. For those who disagree, please stop patronizingly reverting good-faith edits by pretending to be unbiased and only upholding the policies when you clearly are not, I have shown plenty of verification and you have none.

Second of all, even if it was a fringe view, it would still be a "related" topic. Are you really going to tell me that Oikophobia or Allophilia merit inclusion because they are totally well known concepts and therefore related topics? I haven't even heard of those terms before today and a simple Google ngram seach (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Speciesism%2CAllophilia%2COikophobia&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2CSpeciesism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAllophilia%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2COikophobia%3B%2Cc0) shows that speciesism is astronomically more recognized than those two. Again this is ridiculous.

Yrw.nova (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)