This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The part of the section about the United States that says "Proponents of hate speech legislation in the United States have argued that freedom of speech undermines the 14th Amendment by bolstering an oppressive narrative which demeans equality and the Reconstructive Amendment's purpose of guaranteeing equal protection under the law." gives undue weight to a viewpoint that is only held by a minority of people and should be put in a seperate article or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
"Part of a series on Discrimination" is one sided, it suggests a "correct" opinion on the topic. It should also be part of a series on "censorship".
I agree: hate speech is clearly discriminatory, and laws against it are clearly censorship, but including a navbox for the one but not the other makes the article seem to side with those who support the laws rather than being neutral in form. Perhaps the Censorship navbox should be added to this page too, as it is on the main Hate speech article. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Navboxes and series both serve slightly different purposes, and expecting inclusion in one because of the other is at best a form of editorializing and at worst false equivalence. Nowhere does this article discuss censorship, so the inclusion of a navbox would be a form of original research, since the connection is not explicitly made by reliable sources. It is not enough that it may seem obvious to individual editors, it must be explained by sources.
Additionally, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, navboxes should only be added to articles which also include those articles. This article is already included in Template:Discrimination sidebar which seems like a reasonable fit, because the article discusses discrimination several times. The article doesn't specifically discuss censorship, nor is it entirely obvious how it would in this precise context, so I don't think it would be appropriate to add this article to the censorship navbox. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Greece section now appears to be entirely off-topic: one political leader encouraging his followers to lynch another would fall under incitement to violence, and based on the reference on Panos Kammenos's article, the reason for the incident was a controversy over mining rather than the sort of bigotry that this article is about. Since the Greece section currently includes nothing relevant to this article, I am removing it. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
