Wikipedia talk:Discrimination (failed proposal)

This is a policy proposal. --SofieElisBexter (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Obiter

 * This isn't a needed one. If the discrimination takes the form of personal attacks, WP:NPA says that personal attacks are "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor". If the discrimination takes the form of discrediting anothers statements (i.e "his opinion is invalid because he's Greek") it's covered by "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream".
 * Your examples are invalid. You say that we must treat people who speak English badly nicely and with kid gloves - why? It isn't an invalid form of discrimination to say that people on the English Wikipedia should speak English well, the same as how it's perfectly fine to expect Manchester United players to have legs. Discrimination is treating people differently because of a particular personal aspect, and in this case treating people who speak English as a second, third or fourth language nicer than the rest is discrimination - discrimination against everyone else. A policy which requires us to be nicer to those who speak English badly than to everyone else is in itself discriminatory.
 * Notability guidelines: we hold the same kind of notability guideline for everyone. Again, treating certain types of articles with care and excluding them from actual notability policies is discrimination, simply positive discrimination. We've currently got a guideline going for things of local interest and how they can pass notability guidelines, and comments in this domain would be better directed there.
 * "Diginty. Equality in dignity means no content as words, images or other should be humiliating or less dignifying in descibing all people or some groups of people in their characteristics and quolities in artciles or other Wikipedia content, and should not present them in non dignified way" - why? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Pandering to a particular person or groups sensibilities is, again, discrimination.
 * "Political systems of states. Editors should not be possitively or negatively judged on the politics of their states but on their own actions and merits." - again, covered by WP:NPA.
 * Conclusion: such a policy would enforce positive discrimination - you're asking us to treat certain groups of people differently from others? How is that not discrimination? While I'd love to assume good faith some comments and discussions I've found indicate this is most probably your attempt at setting something up to correct perceived wrongs people have committed against you. If that's the case and you do feel you've been "discriminated" against, WP:ANI is that way. Ironholds (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This proposal is completely weird. It's thoughts run counter to a lot of Wikipedia's basic philosophies, and would seem to call for a lot of policing and detailed registration of user profiles. I propose to archive it to the user namespace as a user essay; it has nothing in the Wikipedia namespace to do. Tomas e (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, broadly, with Ironholds. (Though my reading of the 'poor English speakers' bit was different: I saw it as saying simply "don't be rude to people because of their English" which is already covered by WP:CIVILITY.) In particular, the section on notability seems to misunderstand what notability means in the context of Wikipedia. A topic is notable if it's had significant coverage in sources deemed to be reliable: that is not a function of the editor who writes an article or the reader who reads it, so what would it even mean to say a certain topic is notable to women but not to men? Trying to take that into account by treating articles about football differently because most football fans are male seems to be an invitation for all sorts of mess and I really don't see what problem it's intended to solve. Sorry if that sounded a little harsh, SofieElisBexter - obviously trying to protect Wikipedians from discrimination is a noble aim - but I don't believe this policy is needed in addition to those we already have, especially given the specific concerns I and Ironholds have raised above. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * RFC comment: This proposal, as I think I understand it, seems very similar to a structure already in place, the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject. Perhaps it would be a better use of energy to improve upon what we have already than to put a new policy in place. --Gimme danger (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This policy page proposal is under the scope of WP:CIVILITY, and should originate as an RfC to add a section there. I don't think I would support adding it as policy.    M   03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what this adds beyond muddying the waters of already established policies and guidelines (WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:NPOV, etc.) in the name of "can't we all just get along?" Oppose as policy creep. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

-

Hi, I was advised by an editor to bring this to the Discrimination Page.... I have a serious concern about the article "coolie". This article was written with a tremendous amount of inaccurate information and perhaps there might be even an agenda involved and this article must be corrected because the information is false and and misleading to the public.

First of all the Category must be changed from Slavery to Indentured Worker. Second the etymology for coolie is hired laborer or wages. And kuli in turkish means hireling. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coolies I am from these islands and the original article so falsely misrepresents coolies. Many people of Indian and Chinese background took exception to this article because they knew that a lot of the subject matter in the article was false.

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and they were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies

Also the etymology of coolie is "hired laborer" or an "unskilled Asian Laborer" or wage. There are several other etymology used in the present article that is not relevant and they must be removed. Can you please remove this. Asian Slave was used in this article and this is completely false. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coolie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

Coolies were given wages, land, and houses for their labor. Generally speaking people today are not even given this. I know this for a fact because I am from these island and the people there were indeed paid. This resulted in a lot of jealousy and anger from African slaves towards coolies and perhaps rightfully so. Indian coolies were paid about $45 dollars a day plus food and clothing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp: http://www.sahistory.org.za/politics-and-society/anti-indian-legislation-1800s-1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Censorship
See this point: > Where image on anatomy should be used to describe biology of human beings and even of animals, especially on their reproductive systems, conventions of medical image representation and drawing should be used, rather than home made pictures of genitalia.

Cound it be any worse, if it tried?

Photographs of genitalia are absolutely needed for animals, as not everybody is familiar with all kinds of genitals animals could have (I am surely not). An image explains it better. As for human genitalia, they are still very needed: first of, the user should not be assumed being already familiar with the topic at hand, even if that's likely (for instance, "obvious" terms still are defined in the page describing them). Also, for medical conditions, photographs are absolutely needed. Quoting Wikipedia: Content disclaimer:

> Wikipedia contains many different images and videos, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, human anatomy, or sexual acts.

Wikipedia is NOT meant to keep users safe from any kind of image or content. It is meant to spread knowledge. And knowledge about genitalia is best spread by pictures of genitalia.

--Mago Mercurio (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)