Template talk:Discrimination sidebar

Infidel tax

Would an article about a tax imposed on non-believers of a given religion be a reasonable candidate? Some think not?

Inclusion or removal of Antisemitism, Anti-Masonry and Islamophobia

@Gstridsigne and Rainbowofpeace: What are the arguments for the inclusion or removal of Antisemitism, Anti-Masonry and Islamophobia. They are forms of discrimination, but we do not want the side-bar not just to become a massive list. Perhaps a place on the Template:Discrimination nav box would be more appropriate, or a religion sub section? The fact that something features on another sidebar or nav box (such as Template:Status_of_religious_freedom or Template:Religious_persecution ) does not exclude it from inclusion on another. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The main antisemitism article is on the discrimination sidebar. racial antisemitism is in the ethnic discrimination sub-template and religious antisemitism and anti-Judaism are in the religious persecution sub-template. As for Anti-Masonry, Freemasonry is not (nor has it ever been) defined as a religion by its members. It is a fraternal group. The reason why anti-masonry is important is actually because of events like the holocaust which targeted freemasonry. Finally Islamophobia should not be included because it opens up a slippery slope. There is a reason why the sub-templates were created. If we were as to add Islamophobia what would stop us from adding the articles about discrimination against Atheists, or Bahais, Christians or Hindus? Re-merging all the articles from these two templates into the discrimination template would make it huge.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamophobia is quite ubiquitous, especially in the United States and Europe. People of assumed Islamic heritage are often harassed, avoided, and refused service. Because this form of discrimination extends beyond religious persecution, it seems appropriate to include it on the discrimination sidebar. Antisemitism is listed in FOUR locations. That seems excessive, honestly. Especially since the overly specific forms are not easily distinguishable since it includes discrimination against an ethnoreligous group and not just a religious or ethnic group, even though their ethnic and religious origins overlap greatly. Islamophobia has this same overlap. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are quite similar actually. As for Free-masonry not being a religion, it is often categorized as a "quasi-religion," meaning that their members display characteristics of religion: ritual, prayer, sacred texts, and fellowship are all necessary aspects of their institution. They also mandate that all members have a belief in a Divine being (though, they often do not mandate to which Deity they must adhere). In this sense, they are more of a religion than Buddhism, Shintoism, and Taoism. So, if Islamophobia doesn't belong in the discrimination sidebar, then neither do these two forms of religious/ethnic discrimination. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I believe BOTH Antisemitism and Islamophobia should be included on the discrimination sidebar. Many people are discriminated against because they LOOK Muslim, even if they are not. Many Persians who immigrated to the United States as refugees actually practice Zoroastrianism, but because they appear to be Muslim, others still discriminate against them. Very few forms of discrimination include this component (the notable exception being Homophobia, when someone is assumed to be homosexual because they display certain characteristics, but they are in fact heterosexual). Islamophobia is extended towards people of Middle Eastern, Northern African, Turkish, and South Asian descent. Some Hindus are discriminated against because they are assumed to be Muslim. Due to the very incendiary hatred and fear of people of Islamic faith and Middle Eastern heritage, it seems appropriate to include Islamophobia on the discrimination sidebar (along with Antisemitism) since both Antisemitism and Islamophobia are similar in the sense that they both are discrimination against both a religious and ethnic group. But again, if Islamophobia doesn't belong, then neither does Antisemitism. And Free-masonry IS a religion. Gstridsigne (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

General antisemitism is included in the main discrimination template however the specific forms of antisemitism are examined in the sub-templates. The only way you are going to convince me to bring Islamophobia back in when it is clearly a form of religious discrimination (in spite of the racial implications added by perpetrators of Islamophobia) is to merge all three templates back together.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I must disagree. Islamophobia is not clearly a form of religious discrimination BECAUSE it has racial/ethnic implications as well (as you have admitted). Islamophobia and Anti-Arab sentiments overlap greatly, and because of that, it should be included. Since many in the Arab world are assumed to be Muslim (even if some of them are Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Scientific Atheist, or Jew) it becomes, much like Antisemitism, an ethnoreligious discrimination. To many in the Judeo-Christian world, Arab=Muslim and Muslim=Arab. Just like there are some people of Jewish descent who are not Jews and some people of non-Jewish descent who are Jews, there are some Arabs who are not Muslim and some Muslims who are not Arab. There is a similar intersection of identities among Hindus and people of Asiatic Indian descent. However, though discrimination of Hindus and people of Asiatic Indian descent exists, it is not as pernicious and prevalent as Islamophobia. I hope that there is a third party who will be break the tie, so to speak. Another argument for inclusion is that people would expect it to be listed there. If someone was researching discrimination, and used the discrimination sidebar as a guide, they would be confused if Islamophobia was not present. Gstridsigne (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The argument seems to be not whether Islamophobia is a form of discrimination, but rather what type and whether it is significant enough to include in the main sidebar. I feel that it is, but why not add another sub section for Religious discrimination? This way more pages can be linked without it getting too clustered. It might be worth have a request for comments as template talk pages don't get much traffic. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you really want to reinfuse the three templates I could see that however I must say that if we don't do that and we add Islamophobia to the specific forms whats to keep someone from adding any other form of religious discrimination. There is a reason why the other templates were created in the first place.-206.188.36.124 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There simply is no form of labeling that can be considered NPOV when it involves Wikipedia:LABELS#Contentious_labels as mentioned above. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Arguments for and against the use of the terms mentioned above tell us they can never be neutral. We should avoid their use like the plague. Atsme☯^Consult 04:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to tell them what Bill Maher thinks? Maybe you can explain to them how there actually are Muslim Terrorists out there and that proves that Islamophobia does not exist. You know, like you did here, Atsme.

And yes, everyone else, this does seem to be a complex bag. It seems above there are two positions. One, was removed because it was confusing. Two, if should be included because it could be confusing to people researching discrimination who notice its absence. An RFC sounds like a very good idea.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Atsme, I do not believe the discussion is about the use of the word Islamophobia or its status as a form of discrimination. I believe that has been established and accepted by the community. What is being discussed is where amongst the various templates should it be included.

• I am asserting that since Islamophobia is ubiquitous, pernicious, and applied to an extremely wide group of people, it should be included on the general discrimination templates. Also, I feel if someone was cycling through pages on discrimination, they would be confused as to why Islamophobia was excluded but Antisemitism was included, since they are so similar. I compared Islamophobia to Antisemitism to show that Islamophobia is discrimination against an ethnoreligious group, since Islamophobia is often extended and generalized to include anyone of Middle Eastern Descent (among others). I also pointed out that Antisemitism is included on all four templates.

• Rainbowofpeace is asserting that Islamophobia is only discrimination against members of a religious group and of the religion in and of itself. They believe it should only be included amongst the religious persecution template. Also, the entire reason that these templates were separated was to avoid a very large general discrimination template. In addition to this, they assert that the reason for the inclusion of Antisemitism is because it is discrimination against an ethnoreligious group.

• Lastly, to address Atsme's concerns about original research and citations, must we include a citation explicitly naming each form of discrimination? I was under the impression that Templates typically do not include citations (especially since it seems to clutter an already cluttered template). This could be addressed on the actual page, not the template. If the page calls it discrimination, hatred, fear, or some other form of disfavor, it would seem appropriate to include it amongst the templates. Thus, cronyism, which I have expressed my contentions against it already, would not be included.

Are there any other points that should be made? Gstridsigne (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

One more point. I think what ever is decided should be consistent. I avoided an edit war on this. Currently, Anti-Masonry and Antisemitism are listed, but Islamophobia is not. My point is, if Islamophobia does not belong on this template, then neither do Anti-Masonry and Antisemitism. I was not saying that they were unimportant, as Rainbowofpeace insinuated, but only that they were also forms of religious discrimination, and thus did not belong on this template per the guidelines agreed upon by the community. I am very well aware that Masons and Jews were targeted for extermination by the holocaust. I am also aware that, due primarily to their portrayal in popular media, Anti-masonry still exists today. Gstridsigne (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems you both are asking for consistency really.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Gstridsigne, my response actually addressed the use of templates (navboxes, infoboxes) in the sidebar of an article, particularly those associated with "part of a series on". I apologize if I inadvertently created confusion, or misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. I have no dispute over editors using the subject words in a reliably sourced article that is properly weighted. Unfortunately, the latter isn't always the case, but that's a different discussion. Example - the Islamophobia template has been added to the sidebar of some articles that contain information in opposition to Islamic terrorism because there are different perspectives about what constitutes "terrorism". Those articles get tagged with an Islamophobia template in the sidebar which includes links to articles that aren't even related. How many articles with such discriminatory sidebar templates have actually achieved GA or FA status? The entire argument about the discrimination sidebar issue is subjective depending on what side of the isle one stands. Debate on the Talk pages of numerous articles confirm that potential problems arise when a discriminatory sidebar (navbox or infobox) is included because the sidebar templates inherently ignore WP guidelines/policies for WP:NPOV, and/or WP:NOR in an effort to advance a particular cause. It is undeniably so. Editors who add such templates are attempting to further a cause (from their POV), be it for or against something, and it doesn't matter whether it's antisemitic, anti-Masonic, Islamophobic, or a reverse POV. The sidebar wipes out all aspects of neutrality regardless of what side you're on. It isn't our job as editors to add to an article information we already know is pernicious, discriminatory, or pushes a particular POV. Again...'Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Atsme☯^Consult 01:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

^TL;DR I don't like it.

Atsme is here because the Islamophobia template contains Investigative Project on Terrorism and the template is also on that article. An RFC was opened for that issue. She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire. She took it to BLPN and ANI.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg everyone's pardon, but Serialjoepsycho's statement, She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire, is ludicrous. Such behavior is disruptive, and not helping this discussion. This isn't the first time I've had to deal with his disruptive behavior. He is obviously not here in good faith considering his focus has been on maligning and taunting me, not trying to provide constructive input to this discussion. Out of courtesy to others in this discussion, I will simply ignore him.

Gstridsigne, regarding the current topic, has there ever been, or is there even a way to acquire traffic stats to see how much traffic the links on the templates or navboxes are generating in an effort to let us know if the sidebars are actually serving a benefit to readers? Atsme☯^Consult 03:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's ludacris and true. And there's proof. It seems to fit in with her borderline racist claim that muslim terrorism is proof that Islamophobia doesn't exist. If you are interested in the evidence just ask. Or hell just watch as she circles thru arguments and schemes to get rid of the Islamophobia template. See above, asking about the usage numbers.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies for the above.

I noticed that counterjihad is still on the template. That being a manifestation of Islamophobia it seems off keeping it but removing Islamophobia. They may be others as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Add the jizya tax to the series and portal on discrimination

I believe that we should add jizya to the series and portal on discrimination because the jizya tax discriminated against non-muslim minorities by taxing them while the islamic majority that dominated them didn't have to pay the tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyb9999 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)