Template talk:Discrimination

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Discrimination template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Discrimination This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination

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)[reply]

• 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) —[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

 Done Kline • talk • contribs 03:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ludicrous that Anti-Zionism is on the list when Zionism isn't. The article on Anti-Zionism calls it 'a heterogenous phenomenon' and the suggestion it is discriminatory is at the very least highly contentious and perhaps even illogical. Who is being discriminated against here, particularly when there are many Jewish people who would consider themselves opposed to Zionism? To mention this as discrimination and not do the same for Zionism itself, when the violently discriminatory consequences of that particular ideology are there for all to see, is outrageous, and it harms the credibility of Wikipedia. Please remove Anti-Zionism from this list, as it is the most non-contentious way of resolving this. 2A02:8084:4F41:B700:9DE5:F143:938C:5C9 (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [1] @Helper201 removed Anti-Zionism and added Zionism. I don’t have much argument with removing Anti-Zionism, but are we really sure that Zionism belongs here in its place? — HTGS (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]