WikiProject Discrimination (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon
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.
Template This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Please use Template talk:Discrimination for discussion of this template

Greetings! The discussion of issues with this template should be held at the main templates talk page here --> Template talk:Discrimination. Benjiboi 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean Template talk:Discrimination sidebar, since that is evidently supposed to be a copy of this (and so far has a lot more talk)? Zodon (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speciesism: include or not?

Speciesism is also a form of discrimination, but against other living beings. The human being consider itself superior to other species and so gets engaged on animal mass killing (livestock, vivisection, hunting etc.).

Can we add it to the template? Robfbms (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- It certainly has more sensible place in a discussion of social justice than "pedophobia" (aka "justice against anti-child fascists") (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups was added with this edit. I don't have a problem with the article being included in the template, but I have problems with not ascribing the list to the SPLC - see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT. In the absence of a compromise naming, it would seem that we need to default to the article's name. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's good that you follow that discussion which roughly leans away from ascribing this to the acronym "SPLC" which the vast majority of readers would have absolutely no idea to what it would refer. A very bad idea for any template. Insomesia (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion there will be closed in good time, and arguments will be weighed rather than votes. But I have removed the entry altogether here - I am not opposed to its inclusion in principle, but I would prefer it to be excluded rather than included in a non-neutral form. Hence, it should remain unlisted until we can achieve a consensus about how to list it. StAnselm (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not how consensus works - you get to delete whenever you don't get your way - please stop lest we have to start another community discussion to help clear up yet another issue that you seem to disagree with. Insomesia (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT? Have you listened to all the editors who spoke in favour of mentioning the SPLC in the piping? Are you quite sure you are not just wanting your way? StAnselm (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know I'm just thinking but isn't there a general list of groups designated as hate groups by the SPLC? Why not use that instead?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same difference really, but you bring a good point that both should be added. Insomesia (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore, nor am I invested in edit-warring. Interactions with you seem fruitless and your tactic of simply deleting things you don't like sets a poor tone for cooperation. Time and time again your judgement in this entire area has proven to be against community consensus so I will continue to advocate for common sense and following guidelines such as Egg and Linkclarity that you seem to ignore. If I feel it worth the energy a topic ban may be the next step or maybe the community will tire of having to force you to cooperate with one process after another per WP:Competence. The choice is yours. Insomesia (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to propose a topic ban. In any case, I am glad that you won't be edit-warring over this. But again I ask, have you read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Link dispute (another anti-gay hate group one) on Template:LGBT? You do realise, don't you, that, so far, five editors have spoken in favour of the SPLC wording, and five have spoken against? StAnselm (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really strongly feel that List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups would be better than the anti-gay version because it is more inclusive.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree - I just think that to be neutral it needs to mention the SPLC in the piping. StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And once again I would agree with you if there were other list of hate groups on wikipedia. Currently there isn't and since they are at VERY LEAST one of the most imporant organizations on the subject and they have scholars there who study what a hate group is for a living they are at least one of the authorities on what a hate group is. If we had list of hate groups provided by other organizations for example the ADL. I would be completely with you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm wondering if there is any way we can reach a compromise. I thought about creating List of organizations designated by Hope not Hate as hate groups for this very reason, but I can't find much in the way of third party references, and creating a list of borderline notability would be borderline pointy. The only other thing is to wait for the RfC to play out, but it looks like no consensus at the moment. I have no idea what that would mean for the template listings. StAnselm (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is exactly the point. We only have one article on all of Wikipedia about anti-gay hate groups and that's the one. If we get a second article then a debate may be warranted as to which or how to link them, until then we only have the one article on this subject. Insomesia (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel very strongly that using the anti-gay hate groups list would only be useful on an LGBT template. This is NOT an LGBT template this is the discrimination template use the general hate groups list NOT the anti-gay list.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) thReply[reply]
I agree with Rainbowofpeace that it is better to mention hate groups as a generic related topic rather than just one type of hate group. I also think that it would be better to link to hate groups rather than just a list of such groups since that is clearly the lead article for the topic and it should lead naturally to the list anyway. --Mirokado (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly, and I have gone ahead and added the link to both templates. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discrimination against red-haired people, albinos, and those who have a circadian rhythem sleep "disorder" called "Delayed Sleep Phase Syndrome" or "Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder"; suffering the bias of being forced to live in a dominantly diurnal society, surrounded by people who say "you're wasting daylight", "you are sleeping in, obviously you are lazy", "you must have criminal intent to be out at night", "only serious crime happens at night, dont stab me", "you are wearing all black, which house are you robbing?"...etc. Being Left-handed, having exclusive same-gender attraction, nocturnal, and neoPagan I know the difference between non-issue, and "sky is falling" ego-projecting assholes. (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bias in Solutions section

The solutions section is clearly biased as it assumes a culturally heterogeneous environment, as in the United States, rather than a culturally homogenous environment, as in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does that have to do with adding ethnopluralism as a solution to discrimination? It's obviously not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ethnopluralism is a solution in the sense that it suggests protecting the culture of each ethnic group, potentially reducing the perceived privilege of one group - from the article ... stress that each ethnic group and racial group should be considered equal on its own merit.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please cite independent reliable sources that support the notion that it is a countermeasure to discrimination. I should add that white and other separatist movements probably make similar implausible claims that their ideology is a solution to discrimination. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template headings

Below I have list the headings in the template, with a description of my understanding of what should be listed there-

Do people agree, or maybe you have a different interpretation? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cronyism, name and shame

@Rainbowofpeace: Cronyism doesn't belong on the template unless "people I don't know personally" is some sort of identifiable, marginalized group that can be discriminated against, and "name and shame" isn't a form of discrimination at all. Murder music is something I'd at least consider including if it had its own article, but even the article on opposition to it is quite short; it does not seem to belong in a top-level template of this kind. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Roscelese and thanks for your prompt reply. Name and Shame I have no interest in being in the template. If you wish to remove it by all means do so. Cronyism (and its related cousin Nepotism) to me are about using personal relations even when someone more qualified comes along due to them being family or friends. If I were an employer at a law firm and stated I would rather hire my friend Michelle because that she was my friend rather than Rachael who had a law degree and had passed the bar that would be Cronyism. As for Murder Music it is clearly a form of discrimination. Its advocates harming people based on sexual orientation. May I say I was happy with your additions of Feminism as well as the Gender wage gap. Thank you!-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No version of the word discriminat[e/ion/ing/ory] appears at cronyism. Navbox doesn't define, it navigates between defined subjects. Let's take the question of whether it's discrimination to that talk page before restoring it here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think it's necessary to believe that cronyism is a good thing to note that it nonetheless doesn't fall under (forgive the quick quoting of the Wikipedia definition, but others too) "action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice." That's why I noted in my previous comment that "people I don't know" isn't a discrete group that I can discriminate against. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, note that discrimination not only disparages certain groups but can also hold certain groups higher. In this case we are not talking about discrimination against "people you don't know personally", we are talking about giving a certain amount of favoritism towards friends and the fact of the matter is it can lead to people being raised up because of that.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like you're using your own personal definition here. I suggest providing several reliable sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This edit. Please provide RS that describe anticommunism specifically as a form of discrimination, rather than something else. For example, should we include here anti-fascism simply because fascists were "violently oppressed" during WW II? My very best wishes (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes as far as I'm concerned if people who were fascists were oppressed in the same way as communists or leftist supporters were in for example the US it should gladly be included. Facism and communism may not be ideologies with a good reputation but to forbid them to express themselves or the like is still discrimination.
As for communism, maybe there is need for a separate article about oppression of communists since some of the content in the anti-communism article is about legitimate critique of the ideology. Or maybe include the McCarthyism artcile instead.*Treker (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(a) I agree that McCarthyism should be included. (b) I obviously do not think that anti-fascism/ant-Nazi should be included, and the reason is very simple: the oppressors (people who discriminated against other people, for example based on their ethnicity) were actually Nazi themselves. Hence anti-fascism was fight against discrimination/oppression. Same with communists. In the wide historical context, they were oppressors who discriminated against other people like here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really it's a big can of worms of complicated issues. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about history and everything that has happened but I have known people who were raised in both communist and facist countires who have had to suffer from that but in the end it's really too complicated to decide between just two people what counts and does not count. I think it might be for the best to include McCarthyism and leave out most of the other political stuff in the end.*Treker (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also found the article Political repression which is would probably be appropriate to include as well.*Treker (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, found a template for anti-stuff, not sure what to make of it.*Treker (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this template needs more improvements. For example it includes "manifestations", but does not include "ideology" which would be something like "racism" and Nazism. In theory, one could include Nazism as an ethnicity-based discrimination and communism as a "social discrimination" (extermination of certain social groups and a part of common population). Then, "antifascism and "anticommunism" could be also included in this template as "countermeasures". I think that might be logical, but not sure because all such things are described in the literature primarily as ideologies, political systems, etc., rather than as specific types of discrimination. In any case, one would need to look at the literature to fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there is definitely something that needs to be done with both these templates, it seems a little vague right now what should be included in either. Hopefully some other people will chime.*Treker (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed it because no sources was provided that describe anti-communism (an "opposition to communism") specifically as a form of discrimination. Yes, sure, some anticommunist were guilty of discrimination, just like Marxists, Christians, Muslims, whoever. However, it was not described specifically as a form of discrimination, just like Marxism or Islam. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. The McCarthyism is really more appropriate. Thanks for the talk.*Treker (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anti-communism includes many well-known indidents of discrimination or outright persecution: various Red Scares including the Hollywood blacklist, McCarthyism, the activities of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and persecution of communists and other leftists during The Holocaust. This is true regardless of one's opinion of communism as an ideology. Anti-fascism is a false equivalence because even in WWII it was a reaction to the discriminatory ideology and policies of fascists themselves. Our article on discrimination states, Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are unfairly treated in a way which is worse than [how] other people are treated, on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in certain groups or social categories (my bolding). It would be hard to argue that fascists in WWII were treated worse than they treated other people. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meat eating as discrimination

See the discussion on this topic at the talk page of the alternate template, Template talk:Discrimination sidebar § Meat eating as discrimination. Biogeographist (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all pages linked in this template have the template on the page

See the discussion on this topic at the talk page of the alternate template, Template talk:Discrimination sidebar § Not all pages linked in this template have the template on the page. Biogeographist (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discrimination includes all forms of discrimination, human or non-human

Discrimination is not solely confined to those against humans but also includes those against non-humans. This has been well established in the literature, especially since the later half of the 20th century by scholars. An editor has removed with goodfaith entries that are non-human, such as Speciesism and other related ones, citing the lack of information on them in the main Discrimination article. That only warrants adding those info in the main article rather than removing the entries in the templates. Hence I'm reverting this edit. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, discrimination does not include non-humans. Here a several definitions of discrimination (I simply copied them from the top Google results):
  1. Wikipedia: Discrimination is the act of making distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.
  2. Amnesty International: Discrimination occurs when a person is unable to enjoy his or her human rights or other legal rights on an equal basis with others because of an unjustified distinction made in policy, law or treatment.
  3. American Psychological Association: Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age or sexual orientation.
  4. Cambridge Dictionary: the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated
  5. UK government: It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of: age; gender reassignment; being married or in a civil partnership; being pregnant or on maternity leave; disability; race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation
  6. The CDC lists the following types of discrimination: Age Discrimination; Disability Discrimination; Sexual Orientation; Status as a Parent; Religious Discrimination; National Origin; Pregnancy; Sexual Harassment; Race, Color, and Sex; Reprisal / Retaliation
  7. Canadian Human Rights Commission: Discrimination is an action or a decision that treats a person or a group badly for reasons such as their race, age or disability.
  8. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: as a reasonable first approximation, we can say that discrimination consists of acts, practices, or policies that impose a relative disadvantage on persons based on their membership in a salient social group.
  9. Britannica: Discrimination, the intended or accomplished differential treatment of persons or social groups for reasons of certain generalized traits.
None of them mention animals or species.
If you want to change the definition of discrimination, try changing the lede of Discrimination. When and if the definition has been changed to include non-humans, we can include non-humans in this template. But as long as every definition of discrimination only includes humans, this template must only include humans. -- Chrisahn (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of your definition pages beg the question. In every case, your link is to a page that deals with human discrimination. You then show that it restricts the definition to humans, and purport that this means that discrimination can’t apply to species membership.
It very well may be that the question of whether it is inappropriate to discriminate solely on the basis of species membership is an open question. But this doesn’t negate the fact that speciesism is a form of discrimination. You can see this in several places (please notice that many are the same sites you listed, just different pages):
  1. Wikipedia: Speciesism...refers to the differing treatment...based on their species membership. Such discrimination involves...
  2. Animal Charity Evaluators: ...racism, sexism, and speciesism are analogous insofar as all such forms of discrimination...
  3. American Psychological Association: discriminatory, prejudicial, or exploitative practices against nonhuman animals...
  4. Britaanica: ...analogous to racism, sexism, and other...discrimination...
  5. Merriam-Webster: ...discrimination based on species...
  6. Hundreds of .gov sites 721 results for US government webpages that use "speciesism" and "discrimination" on the same page
  7. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Discrimination based on race, like discrimination based on species is thought to be prejudicial...
While it may be an open question as to whether discriminating based on species membership is wrong, it nevertheless certainly remains true that speciesism is definitely a type of discrimination. — Eric Herboso 22:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your examples just show that if you add other search terms, you'll find several other meanings of the word discrimination. Similar examples:
But we're not talking about the meaning of discrimination plus qualifier, we're talking about the meaning of the word discrimination without any qualifier. The meaning of the word discrimination without any qualifier is quite clear and unambiguous, and the diverse sources I quote above agree on it. That's why none of the other meanings I listed here are included in the template. In particular, that meaning does not include any other species than homo sapiens.
You wrote: In every case, your link is to a page that deals with human discrimination. That's correct, but it's also a distortion of the facts. I simply searched for discrimination (without any qualifier), and these are the top pages that came up. All of them define the word discrimination (without any qualifier), and none of them include non-humans. None of them call it human discrimination. They simply call it discrimination.
Language evolves. Maybe the meaning of the word discrimination will change. Maybe in five, fifteen or fifty years it will include other species. Then we can also include them in this template. But currently it doesn't, so we can't. -- Chrisahn (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be that meat eating, animal testing, cruelty to animals, and the like are contested as to whether they are speciesist or not. These are questions that are debated, and so per WP:FRINGE, it may not be appropriate to bring them up in the context of discrimination on wikipedia. But speciesism itself, the idea that one can discriminate on the basis of species, is certainly a type of discrimination. You might want to argue that no forms of speciesism exists on Earth, but the concept in principle remains an example of discrimination. At the very least, we should have speciesism on the list under "General forms", even if none of the specific cited cases of speciesm are allowed per WP:FRINGE. — Eric Herboso 22:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speciesism itself, the idea that one can discriminate on the basis of species, certainly is not a type of discrimination in the sense that is relevant here. All relevant definitions of discrimination (see above) clearly only apply to human beings. Speciesism only is a type of discrimination if you're using a different, more broad meaning of the word. For example, Discrimination (disambiguation) says: Discrimination is the ability to distinguish one thing from another, often involving a value judgement. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about discrimination as defined by the article Discrimination. -- Chrisahn (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The TV show Alien Nation, the movie District 9, and many other scifi media depict non-human aliens in a context where it is clear that the non-human aliens are discriminated against. Surely it is clear that the proper object of the term "discrimination" is a person, not a human. Of course, I realize that most people consider only humans to be persons. I admit that it is WP:FRINGE to consider non-humans as potential persons. Nevertheless it remains true that when you are talking about the idea of discrimination itself, using the exact definition of discrimination that is used in the discrimination article, it counts as discrimination when a non-human person is discriminated against. On that basis, I am arguing that the term speciesism be added to the list of types of discrimination. This doesn't mean that we have to add "meat eating" or other articles that are not directly about discrimination. It just means that we should add the term that refers to non-human discrimination, a term that most people would recognize as real discrimination, if the target was a non-human person. It remains an open debated question as to which species count as persons, but the idea that non-human persons can be discriminated against is the exact same type of discrimination talked about in the discrimination article. It is not some "other" definition, nor some rogue interpretation. This is how people use and think about the word discrimination. — Eric Herboso 03:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Herboso: "...using the exact definition of discrimination that is used in the discrimination article, it counts as discrimination when a non-human person is discriminated against". No, it doesn't. Read the first sentence of the Discrimination article: Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings...
"This is how people use and think about the word discrimination." No, it isn't. See e.g. -- Chrisahn (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're honestly taking the position that if we meet aliens and they claim they are being discriminated against, then we would have to expand the definition of the term "discrimination" in order to add them in? You honestly don't think that most people in the world would think that the definition can already apply to them despite them being non-human? I must admit I am flummoxed at how you can think this is how the word is thought of and used by most people.
The reason why the top 10 search results don't mention species discrimination is because the top 10 results are all about specific forms of discrimination. In some cases, it is a matter of what counts as legal discrimination. In the US .gov link, it doesn't mention trans discrimination there. This isn't because trans discrimination doesn't exist. It's because that particular link deals with discrimination that is delineated by US law. In none of the links does it talk about size discrimination. This isn't because size discrimination isn't a thing; it's just because size discrimination isn't covered in those particular links. Clearly there are many forms of discrimination, not all of which appear in that first search engine result page. What matters is what the definition of discrimination is referring to. People were not utterly confused by Alien Nation and District 9 because they understood already that targets of discrimination can be any group of persons, not merely any group of humans. I honestly find it amazing that you can seriously dispute this. You can certainly disagree that the nonhumans we know of count as persons, but to say that no nonhuman can ever even in principle count as a person is, quite frankly, discriminatory. — Eric Herboso 04:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Herboso: "to say that no nonhuman can ever even in principle count as a person" - I didn't say that. Rather the opposite. Read what I wrote above: Language evolves. Maybe the meaning of the word discrimination will change. Maybe in five, ten or fifty years it will include other species [or, since you mentioned them, aliens]. Then we can also include them in this template. But currently it doesn't, so we can't. -- Chrisahn (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chrisahn: I think that in the last couple of responses we may have talked past one another. What I meant by that quote ("to say...person") was that you are saying that language can change so that the targets of “discrimination” have new referents. But I am saying the opposite: that “discrimination” already encapsulates beings who may not even be discriminated against yet. What I am saying is that, even without language changing or evolving at all, “discrimination” already can refer to nonexistent entities. Whereas you seem to be saying that the opposite: that “discrimination” would have to expand to include new entities if we decide to have them count as also being potentially discriminated against.
To put it another way: we agree that age discrimination exists. Pretend that scientists solve aging next week. Everyone now magically appears in the vitality of their youth. No one experiences age discrimination ever again. Now, in this hypothetical scenario, I ask: does age discrimination as a concept still exist? I say yes. You seem to be saying no.
I don’t want to mischaracterize your position. If I’m wrong here, I apologize. But it seems like you are saying that in order for the concept of a discrimination to exist, there must be an actual discrimination occurring. And since you don’t believe that animals are discriminated against, you thus think that speciesism doesn’t count as discrimination. You aren’t saying that it can’t ever count that way — if animals did become seen as being discriminated against, then you’d be in favor of revising the concept of discrimination to include them. But until that happens, your stance is that discrimination does not include them even as a concept.
Meanwhile, I am saying the opposite: that discrimination as a concept exists even when no one is actually being discriminated against in that category. To me, age discrimination exists even when no one is discriminated against by age. And species discrimination exists regardless of whether any animals or other non-humans are discriminated against by their species. To me, regardless of one’s stance on animal issues, speciesism clearly exists as a category of discrimination, even if you believe that no animals at all are being discriminated against. To me, this is what the concept of discrimination refers to now, without any change in language at all. Further, it is my contention that most people think about concepts the way that I am describing them, not the way that you are describing them. Because of this, I believe “speciesism” clearly should be listed as a form of discrimination, regardless of any potential disagreement about whether any particular beings are discriminated against on the basis of species. (Although I regret saying "clearly" so many times on this talk page, because clearly this issue is not as clear as I first thought it would be for everyone.)
Again: I apologize if I’m misstated your position. But from your last comment, it certainly sounds to me like you’re saying that it only counts as discrimination after we change the language to include it, whereas I’m saying that it is included now, regardless of whether any beings are actually discriminated against yet.
But this is getting long, and I think my previous replies may have been more terse than they should have been. I’ll understand if you don’t want to continue debate on this particular point further. — Eric Herboso 05:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eric, you didn't seriously write the concept (several times, too) "To me, age discrimination exists even when no one is discriminated against by age." and "I’m saying that [discrimination] is included now, regardless of whether any beings are actually discriminated against yet." Wikipedia is about "what is", not what might be, possibly, maybe, in someone's head as an idea for the moment but might someday perhaps maybe exist in real life. Normal Op (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are accurately understanding what I mean here. With all earnestness, I legitimately am surprised that people are disagreeing with me on this point. To me, it really does feel obvious that concepts are included in the definitions of current words even when they refer to nothing that happens to exist in the current world. Nobody believes in the divinity of Thor anymore, but it still makes sense to me that we can talk about the pantheon of Thor with regard to religion without having to "extend" the definition of religion to include it first. To me, Thor is a part of religion even when He has has no adherents, and Template:Religion_topics agrees with me. Similarly, speciesism as a concept counts as a form of discrimination in my mind even in the case when no actual being is being discriminated against in that way. I acknowledge that you and others are disagreeing with me on this, but I really am amazed that I'm getting this level of pushback. I have never before met in my entire life anyone who would define concepts only when they had actual members. I suppose this is a fundamental disagreement; maybe there's no way for us to agree on this particular point. — Eric Herboso 06:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Herboso: I guess the main point here is that our opinions and beliefs don't matter. We have to try to ignore them while we're editing Wikipedia. To put it bluntly: It doesn't matter what feels obvious to you or me. What matters is Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's one of the core policies of Wikipedia. (Also see the essays Wikipedia:Truth, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, and (confusing title) Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability.)
In this case, we have to find reliable sources for the current common meaning of the word discrimination. I think I provided several such sources. There are many more (I just added the definition from Britannica). All of them say that discrimination (without any adjectives or qualifiers) means discrimination against humans. None of them mention animals.
Additionally, as a rough test how "normal people" (not just dictionary authors or public officers) use the word, I just read 100 of the latest tweets including the word discrimination. They talked about discrimination against humans based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, etc. None mentioned any kind of discrimination against non-humans. This may indicate that (very roughly) fewer than 1% of the occurences of the word discrimination mean discrimination against non-humans. Wikipedia doesn't allow Twitter search URLs. :-( You'll have to copy & paste it: []
Yes, speciesism and price discrimination are forms of "discrimination" - but that's a broader meaning of "discrimination". According to all reliable sources I've seen, by far the most common meaning of discrimination (without any adjectives or qualifiers) is discrimination against humans. -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That argument makes sense to me, based on my reading NAVBOX, too. It sounds as though we should add "speciesism" under "General forms", but not add any articles that don't primarily relate to discrimination. I haven't looked through all of the animal-related topics that Rasnaboy added, but, at a glance, the only one that clearly and directly relates to discrimination is the Speciesism article. I think everything else would be properly left out per WP:NAVBOX, unless I missed an article that also primarily and directly relates to discrimination. — Eric Herboso 06:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discrimination is used incoherently in general language - it is often used to refer to unjustified treatment based on a characteristic (perceived or real), which is a normative definition. Other times it is used to refer to treatment based on a characteristic (perceived or real) with no normative content, purely descriptive (consider that if you have qualifications for a job and deny the job to people without those qualifications, you are discriminating against them, but nobody would see that as wrong). One can define a certain type of discrimination normatively e.g define speciesism as wrong by definition, but then you have the problem that if the treatment based on species isn't wrong, it isn't speciesism (and thus by some philosophers, speciesism never occurs in the real world because it's not wrong to discriminate based on species). I will note that the page for speciesism uses a descriptive definition, not a normative one. The issue is that discrimination is a morally loaded word in real world useage - when animal rights activists argue speciesism is a form of discrimination, they are usually arguing it is unfair treatment, rather than making the utterly banal observation that it is treating something based on a (perceived or real) characteristic. So they are using normative definitions.

If the Navbox is referring to a normative definition of discrimination, then the Navbox should be junked entirely because this violates WP:NPOV. Since I assume the navbox is talking descriptively then it's fine to include speciesism there - some people see nothing wrong with it, go the page if you want to read about the debate. In my personal opinion the Navbox is utterly screwed because, logically, it should have all kinds of discrimination in it, as you can discriminate on any conceivable characteristic. Instead it seems to only talk about kinds of discrimination that are viewed as normatively wrong, yet it talks about them in a descriptive way (mostly). This has actually been mentioned on the talk page for Discrimination: So I think this is actually a broader issue with the Navbox myself.

So I guess I see nothing wrong with it being there if we're going to include any kind of discrimination in the descriptive sense. If we're only including normative definitions, then the entire Navbox should be removed since that violates WP:NPOV Sdio7 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descriptive? Normative? What the (bleep) is that all about? Every word in the English language has one or more "definitions". See any dictionary. The word "discrimination" has just a few. You describe two: (1) treating others in an unjust or unequal manner, and (2) using judgment or expertise to evaluate something. The article Discrimination covers #1. For #2, see Discrimination (disambiguation) or Wiktionary. The other day, I checked for which pages link to this template. There were over 500 of them, and I scanned through the entire list looking for anything that did NOT relate to human-human relations. There were none, except for Speciesism. The term "speciesism" is mentioned in the Discrimination article with a simple sentence and, per FRINGE and DUE WEIGHT, that is all it merits. You can argue bizarre concepts such as "normative" and "descriptive", but those of us who cut our teeth on dictionaries know what a definition is, and know that words have many of them, and that it is just a function of "language" and no more mysterious or complicated than that. There's no need to complicate it further. Normal Op (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If discrimination is defined in the first manner it's normatively defined, because it's defined as "unjust or unequal" treatment. The latter definition is descriptive. Many people, including scholars and philosophers, see nothing wrong with speciesism, so it wouldn't actually be discrimination under the normative definition (since if speciesism isn't unjust and discrimination is unjust, speciesism can't be discrimination). I actually argued with some people on the speciesism page recently about this issue (because speciesism has normative and descriptive definitions and the article seemed to be alternating between which one it used, when they are different concepts). See the edit history of that page. Sdio7 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdio7: Wikipedia is NOT a forum for discussing your viewpoints about a topic, and for as long as you continue to use esoteric mumbo-jumbo such as 'normative' and 'discriptive', my fingers are in my ears. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:Talk page guidelines. Normal Op (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean I'm not discussing viewpoints, I'm pointing out how the concept differs depending on which adjective we use and how certain concepts violate WP:NPOV by default (unless they are clearly given voice and it's made clear it's the sources viewpoint, now Wikipedia's). Otherwise anyone could remove anything they like from the page on the grounds of violating NPOV and it would be hard to say they were wrong since it would indeed be violating neutrality. Provided it's voiced/attributed to the sources this shouldn't be a problem however, though this will require the page to get some rework to fit that. Sdio7 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Normal Op: The distinction between 'normative' and 'descriptive' is not esoteric, but quite common. Simple example: the statement "oranges taste sweeter than lemons" is descriptive, "oranges taste better than lemons" is normative. For more details, see e.g. [1] and many other sources. -- Chrisahn (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chrisahn: In my day, that was called 'objective' and 'subjective'. Normal Op (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true that descriptive is similar to objective, but normative is very different from subjective. Normative is about norms, not about subjectivity. Biogeographist (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Biogeographist. More examples: The statement "the wooden box feels warmer to me than the steel box" is subjective and descriptive, while "the wooden box feels nicer to me than the steel box" is subjective and normative. The statement "one gram of potassium cyanide can kill a person" is objective and descriptive, "murdering an innocent person with one gram of potassium cyanide is objectively wrong" is objective and normative... Or is it? Is moral realism objectively true? And it gets worse: moral relativism tells us there's descriptive moral relativism as well as normative moral relativism. Such fun! :-) -- Chrisahn (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the fact that no one can define these terms without pointing to a "philosophy" source, proves what I said before: it's an esoteric term and has gone far beyond simple, ordinary and regular English which is all that should be needed in a discussion such as this [should have been]. Normal Op (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sdio7 wrote: If we're only including normative definitions, then the entire Navbox should be removed since that violates WP:NPOV. This doesn't make sense to me. Most or all of the items in this navbox refer to somebody's norms, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses any of those norms. In other words, it is not a violation of WP:NPOV that this navbox catalogues discriminative norms. Example: The navbox contains both Black supremacy and White supremacy. Which norm is Wikipedia promoting? As far as can discern, neither. Wikipedia is just cataloguing them. Biogeographist (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I mean that if what is decided to go in the box is based on it being morally wrong discrimination - if the criterion is their moral wrongness. That would violate NPOV since we would need to have a point of view to decide which forms of discrimination are wrong and thus which go in the box. Currently Wikipedia seems to be trying to just catalogue them as you say, but I was raising the issue of how the box should contain all kinds of discrimination, including those deemed popularly and scholarly to be morally correct, if it is to be descriptive. Sdio7 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how anyone could think that this template is about discriminating in the sense of differentiating, such as the perceptual ability to differentiate the different lightness of white and black. Most or all of these items are about discriminating that violates or upholds somebody's norms about categories. The question in this thread is about whether those categories should include only human subjects. Biogeographist (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discrimination can also refer to things like not hiring someone if they lack qualifications - most people would agree with that kind of discrimination. The template doesn't make clear what kinds of discrimination it is about. Most of the ones it mentions seem to be those normatively criticised (such as racism, sexism, religious intolerance, bad treatment of the disabled etc), when you could have any kind there. If we only include those that are normatively criticised then that raises questions about what kinds of discrimination should be there and according to whose norms. In essence, what is this template supposed to be about and what is it not supposed to be about? User:Normal Op observed below that it has no clear scope or limit.Sdio7 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There seems to be a consensus developing in this thread that the relevant definition is in Discrimination, which speaks of distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong, especially when it leads to worse treatment or exclusion of members of the groups, classes, or other categories. (But the article does mention speciesism later on.) I'm doubtful about the relevance of your example of not selecting or promoting someone for a job if the person lack qualifications; that example seems to be about a person's performance (or potential performance), not about being excluded or treated worse based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong. Biogeographist (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, I was referring to how people use the term in common parlance. Even if we use the criterion of being treated worse, that begs the question of how that is measured in a non-normative way (not being hired for a job would be being treated worse if you think a person should be entitled to a job, for example. Sure this is a very silly point of view but I'm sure someone, somewhere holds it). I agree that the consensus is that Discrimination being used on the Template refers to discrimination amongst humans. Sdio7 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, when you use such terms as "non-normative", you lose your audience. Not planning on any mental gymnastics to solve what is a simple issue. Normal Op (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just trying to ensure it avoids violating WP:NPOV, since being normative would violate that. Some of my edits on the speciesism page were all about the concern that the page was defining it in such a a way as to make it anti-speciesism (and thus violate NPOV). But I can see this topic is getting off track. Sdio7 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding cases like hiring based on qualifications: Several definitions of discrimination use words like unjustified, unfair or wrongful, but the lede of Discrimination didn't reflect that. I added them to clarify that one can make justified and unjustified distinctions between people, and discrimination involves the latter. Most would agree that hiring decisions based on qualifications are justified, so even if they are a form of discrimination in a broader sense, that's not the sense that is relevant here. -- Chrisahn (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair enough but if we're using discrimination to mean unjustified distinctions, should speciesism be listed? Many people see nothing wrong with speciesism and while it has plenty of critics, which Rasnaboy listed above, it has defenders (Williams, Scruton, Peikoff, Nozick, Grau, Maclean, Cohen) - how can an unjustified thing be morally defended i.e justified? The answer is that it is not inherently unjustified, only contextually so. Francois Jacquet brought this up in his "Is Speciesism Wrong by Definition?" article, where he discusses this very concept and points out the problems with defining it as unjust treatment. So basically, is the discrimination template only about unjustified discrimination? If it is, speciesism probably shouldn't be there because it has plenty of defenders (and I would argue that since justified/unjustified is a POV, the Template would violate WP:NPOV. If it's about any kind of discrimination, justified, unjustified, whatever, then it should be there. Sdio7 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdio7: First: Should speciesism be listed? I'm arguing it shouldn't because discrimination as defined by Discrimination (and all reliable sources I've seen) is discrimination against human beings. Because speciesism doesn't meet this criterion, we don't need to determine whether it meets the narrower criterion of being unjustified.
Now to your main point: Is the discrimination template only about unjustified discrimination? I'd say it is, because that's how Discrimination (and all reliable sources I've seen) defines the by far most common meaning of discrimination.
Does that mean the template violates NPOV? I think we can avoid that. Biogeographist mentioned "somebody's norms" above, and I think that's the key here: We only include forms of discrimination that are usually considered discrimination in the sense defined by Discrimination, i.e. unjustified discrimination against humans, according to reliable sources.
In other words: It doesn't matter whether some editors feel something is unjustified. What matters is that reliable sources say that a certain form of discrimination is commonly considered unjustified.
(A similar criterion could be: We only include forms of discrimination that are illegal in many countries. Advantage: Can be determined more clearly, less danger of violating NPOV. Disadvantage: probably too strict.)
Of course, there will always be disagreements (as we see here), but I think the general approach is workable and conforms to WP:NPOV. -- Chrisahn (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, as Chrisahn implied, when I said Most or all of the items in this navbox refer to somebody's norms, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses any of those norms, by "somebody's norms" I didn't mean one person's norms but instead norms that are common enough to have been commented on in reliable sources. I don't know enough about the speciesism literature "off the top of my head" to say whether speciesism would meet this criterion, but I just took 5 seconds to check one of Eric Herboso's searches mentioned above ("speciesism" + "discrimination" + on Google) and one of the top hits is a 2019 article in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations titled "Speciesism, generalized prejudice, and perceptions of prejudiced others" that reported empirical research on this very question (n = 275) and concluded "that laypeople seem intuitively aware of the connection between speciesism and 'traditional' forms of prejudice, inferring similar personality traits and general prejudicial attitudes from a speciesist just as they do from a racist, sexist, or homophobe". It's just one study, and not a super-impressive number of subjects, but it supports the idea that Speciesism belongs in the "Related topics" section of this template as I proposed below. Biogeographist (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chrisahn: I sort of see what you mean now and I suppose this could possibly work. I think we would need to make clear the sources are arguing it is unjustified rather than Wikipedia but it could work. I don't disagree that discrimination is usually discussed in the context of discrimination against human beings but I think it could go in the Related Topics section (see my response to Biogeographist below) due to discussions in philosophy.
@Biogeographist: I don't think the study helps meet the criterion, since the connection laypeople made was suggested to be due to common personality traits underlying both (higher levels of social dominance apparently), as well as the fact that lots of people arguably engage in speciesism all the time, so I'm not sure it would be a good way to see if it meets the criterion since it's not clear anti-speciesist norms are sufficiently common. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't go in Related Topics. I think you can make the case that the fact the topic is debated amongst scholars could merit it being in the Related Topics section, since it is an area of contention and thus could warrant mention in such a section, since there are philosophers trying to argue speciesism constitutes a form of unjustified discrimination. So by putting it in the Related Topics, we are saying "here's an area where it's being debated if this is discrimination" - this also fits your criterion of "norms common enough to be mentioned in reliable sources" criterion as well. What do you think? Sdio7 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdio7: Agreed that, at least to my knowledge, it's not clear how common anti-speciesist norms are in the general population. On Google Scholar I checked what cites the aforementioned article and noticed that in 2019 Lucius Caviola, one of the co-authors of the article, finished his Ph.D. thesis, which concluded based on empirical studies (n = 8,218) "that speciesism is a pervasive psychological phenomenon". That suggests at first glance (I haven't read the thesis) that anti-speciesist norms are uncommon in the general population. But apart from the original empirical research reported in the aforementioned article, its first sentence notes the existing philosophical literature: "Philosophers have long noted the inconsistency in how we treat animals, describing our relationship with animals as 'speciesist' in a deliberate attempt to express a parallel with other forms of unjustified discrimination such as racism and sexism ..." What would seem to justify putting Speciesism in the "Related topics" section is the fact that philosophers have often associated speciesism with discrimination in their discussions of speciesism. For some of those philosophers anti-speciesism is a norm, and presumably for other philosophers it is not, but in any case speciesism as a topic has been associated with discrimination as a topic in reliable sources, just as, for example, prejudice as a topic has been associated with discrimination as a topic in reliable sources (therefore Prejudice is in the "Related topics" section). Biogeographist (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I am in agreement here too - it is a related enough topic to be included there and the way it is discussed it obviously meant to link it (often either to argue it is the same or to argue that it is not). I am happy to simply place it in the Related Topics section and it would seem you are too. However I would like to get @Chrisahn: view on the topic as well since they clearly have concerns about the scope of the template. Chrisahn, do you would find the argument made by Biogeographist persuasive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdio7 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would still object to placing "speciesism" onto the template, even in the "Related topics" section. I'm thinking we should make an RfC about it to get broader consensus (now that the topic has been hashed to death). Normal Op (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a simple solution, but am not sure how "simple" people here would perceive it to be: that we have sources in which scholars regard speciesism as discrimination against non-human species (Singer, Francione, Ryder, Regan, Horta, Engel, Wise, Joy and others), why not add in the lede of the Descrimination article something like "Although traditionally linked with injustices against humans, starting from the 1970s, scholars began to recognize descrimination extending to non-human species as well..." and brief about speciesism in a subsection under "Examples of Discrimination"? After all speciesism is not a fringe issue but a well-established concept of study in the academics. I guess this is what Chrisahn suggested initially. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's not what I suggested. I agree that speciesism is not a fringe concept anymore. But the opinion that the usual meaning of discrimination includes non-humans is a fringe opinion. For example, here are the top results for : [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. They all mention person, people and other words for human beings. None of them mention animals, let alone speciesism. -- Chrisahn (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any feedback on the idea of putting Speciesism in the "Related topics" section? Biogeographist (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it might be a compromise. But I'd rather stick to the definition given in the lede and the Definitions section of Discrimination. If we add speciesism to this template, we're using a broader definition. In that case, we should also add Price discrimination and several other terms. -- Chrisahn (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding price discrimination would be absurd here. I cannot believe that you honestly think that speciesism is more similar to that kind of discrimination than to the discrimination described in the actual discrimination article, regardless of your stance on non-human animals. — Eric Herboso 04:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think speciesism and price discrimination have a similar semantic distance from discrimination as defined by Discrimination, albeit in very different directions (or dimensions, if you will): species extends the definition towards other species, price discrimination extends the definition towards relatively benign forms for discrimination. I don't support adding price discrimination to the "Related topics" section, but it wouldn't be absurd. It's a related topic. For example, see Gender-based price discrimination in the United States. -- Chrisahn (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Scholar hit counts for items in "Related topics"

Above I proposed that Speciesism belongs in the "Related topics" section of this template. Normal Op countered that it does not. More evidence would be helpful. To test how Speciesism compares to other items currently in "Related topics", I decided to look up "discrimination" plus unfairness OR unfair plus each item in the "Related topics" section in Google Scholar to report the hit counts here (the synonym unfairness OR unfair was added to try to reduce irrelevant meanings of "discrimination"). This is subject to all the usual caveats of Wikipedia:Search engine test § Interpreting results, but it may provide a basis for further discussion.

(Some details: I chose Google Scholar instead of Google to exclude the kind of fringe sources that a general Google search would include, and I changed "criminal news" to "crime news" since that was the much more widely used term in search results, and I didn't search for list topics since they were too general, and I put a question mark next to The talk (racism in the United States) since I couldn't think of a way to meaningfully search for that.)

Bias, Diversity (politics), and Prejudice, being very general words, all have six-figure hit counts. The topics with the lowest hit counts, under 100, are Second-generation gender bias, Net bias, Polyculturalism, Allophilia, Masculism, and Oikophobia dead last.

Speciesism, admittedly, does not fare well in this fight. You could say it leads the bottom third. As a thought experiment, if I were to weed the "Related topics" section based on these hit counts alone, I would eliminate everything below about 1,000 hits, which means that Speciesism would come this close to being included but, alas, would not make the cut. Biogeographist (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic Results
Speciesism 913
Allophilia 52
Bias 134,000
Christian privilege 191
Civil liberties 37,900
Cultural assimilation 3,960
Dehumanization 8,560
Diversity (politics) 120,000
Ethnic penalty 233
Eugenics 8,540
Internalized oppression 1,780
Intersectionality 15,800
Male privilege 4,620
Masculism 46
Medical model of disability 5,870
Medical model of autism 1,400
Multiculturalism 30,000
Net bias 71
Neurodiversity 412
Oikophobia 13
Oppression 78,300
Police brutality 10,600
Political correctness 9,320
Polyculturalism 69
Power distance 3,000
Prejudice 111,000
Prisoner abuse 382
Racial bias in crime news 177
Religious intolerance 3,520
Second-generation gender bias 81
Snobbery 2,760
Social exclusion 25,200
Social model of disability 3,070
Social stigma 12,100
Stereotype 45,700
Stereotype threat 5,060
The talk (racism in the United States) ?
White privilege 11,600

This template needs further documentation

Per Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should be clearly documented as to their usage and scope." There is currently no basic purpose, usage or scope information in the documentation for ((Discrimination)), though there is some in ((Discrimination sidebar)). Wikipedia:Template documentation has some good tips. Normal Op (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I very much agree. Since the template is simply called Discrimination, I think we should specify that its scope should only include articles whose subjects meet the definition given in the article Discrimination. But certainly not all of them, so we'll have to add criteria to narrow down the scope. -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say the issue is that it's not clear what the definition being used is - it says unjustified distinctions. How are we measuring unjustified - by philosophical viewpoint? Popular opinion? For example, discrimination based on race was considered acceptable until relatively recently. This is what I was getting at with the speciesism aspect above - most people wouldn't consider discrimination based on species to be unjustified, so if we use popular opinion it can't be a form of discrimination (and even philosophers are divided on the topic) and thus can't possibly go on the page. Basically this is what I mean by normative definition of discrimiantion. Note that the Stanford Encyclopaedia page on discrimination discusses this. Sdio7 (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". I notice that the Stanford page does NOT discuss 'speciesism'. (Since you're dragging that thread down into this one.) Normal Op (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I mean the scope of discrimination and its use as a moralised concept, it actually mentions it explicitly in point "1.2 The Moralized Concept". It also talks about it in Point 4 as well, particularly 4.1 where it talks about it. I was using the speciesism one as an example to make my point rather than articulating the entire thing all over again. Sdio7 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The topic of "discrimination" is fairly simple and doesn't require studying philosophy to understand it. Normal Op (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many entries in Wikipedia that require information from experts to understand it better. Most people use the word "murder" to mean killing another human, but the murder article specifies that there are several additional requirements before something can be called murder. Most people use the word "tea" for any instance of drink that's infused with leaves or other plants, but tea specifies that it only counts as tea if the leaves are Camellia sinensis. Similarly, discrimination requires input from the experts who actually do the most work on thinking about the topic, and in this case that is clearly philosophers.
While you may erroneously think that discrimination merely applies to humans, there is a long history of philosophers who are careful to potentially include nonhuman animals in this concept. Not all of them actually believe that animals are discriminated against. As far as I know, most don't. But they are almost unanimous is keeping the definition of discrimination to refer to "persons", not "humans", so that the concept includes potential nonhuman persons. The debate in philosophy is NOT whether discrimination should refer to persons or humans -- everyone is agreed that it should refer to persons. The actual debate in philosophy is whether non-human animals should count as persons, which would entail their inclusion in being discriminated against.
In philosophy, it is a given that speciesism is considered a form of discrimination. The only debate there is whether wrongful speciesist discrimination occurs in our world. Even the most strident anti-animal advocates in philosophy would still agree that speciesism is a form of discrimination.
You keep saying that the SEP article doesn't mention speciesism directly. But of course they don't! Speciesism is just one of many forms of discrimination, and given its debated status as to whether it occurs in our world, the author doesn't bother to list it. They also don't bother to list age discrimination, size discrimination, or dozens upon dozens of other types of discrimination currently listed on this template because the function of the SEP article is not to list the types of discrimination, but to discuss the idea of discrimination in a generalized way.
However, at the bottom of the SEP article, there is a link to the InPhO, which is specifically used by philosophers to list sub-items in the way that you are acting like the SEP should. When you click this link, you can clearly see that, in its description of the ontology of discrimination, it lists “species” as a hyponym of discrimination, “moral status of animals” under occurrences, Peter Singer as a related thinker, and “speciesism” as a related term. Clearly, philosophers consider speciesism as a legitimate form of discrimination. — Eric Herboso 21:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eric Herboso: You make some good points about analyzing the meanings of words, but large parts of what you wrote are wrong.
"you may erroneously think that discrimination merely applies to humans" — That's not erroneous at all. By far the most common meaning of discrimination applies only to humans. See long discussion and dozens of sources in the previous section.
"...keeping the definition of discrimination to refer to "persons", not "humans", so that the concept includes potential nonhuman persons" — In almost all cases, the word person refers to a human being. For example, in the SEP entry on discrimination, person means human being. I could post a hundred excerpts to confirm that, but for the sake of brevity, here are the article's closing words: "...a kind of wrong that is deeply entrenched in human social relations".
"In philosophy, it is a given that speciesism is considered a form of discrimination" — That's misleading. It's correct for the broader sense defined by Discrimination (disambiguation), i.e. "distinguish one thing from another". But there's no agreement among philosophers that treating humans and animals in profoundly different ways is unjustified.
InPhO lists “species” as a hyponym of discrimination, “moral status of animals” under occurrences, and “speciesism” as a related term — That's correct, but meaningless. The page also lists "Space and Time", "Sounds" and ca. 250 other supposed hyponyms; "Finitism in Geometry", "Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory" and ca. 90 other subjects as occurrences; and "Literature", "Questions" and almost 700 other related terms. According to InPhO, discrimination is related to literature, speciesism, questions, etc etc. So what?
In conclusion: Clearly, philosophers consider speciesism as a legitimate form of discrimination — No, they don't. More precisely: Some do, most don't. -- Chrisahn (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Normal Op: The topic of "discrimination" is fairly simple... - Unfortunately, it isn't. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. ...and doesn't require studying philosophy to understand it - Philosophy isn't required, but can be helpful to identify, understand and possibly even answer several subtle questions regarding discrimination. -- Chrisahn (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]