0

There are quite a few posts running into the 5 tag limit, so removing irrelevant tags is always a benefit.

On the other hand, useful tags are important, because they help people search up and categorize specific topics.

Should we merge some or all of these tags, or should we keep them separate?

Note: I’m not saying what should be done, but asking what should be done. This is not a

3 Answers 3

6

Q: Do [racism] and [antisemitism] add relevant information on top of [discrimination]?

Yes, but in the same sense as , , and add relevant information on top of . Or, any of the vote scoring tags on top of ; that is, the tags add a detail that is used to categorize questions for more efficient searching for questions about the particular types.

Generally, would not be used with either or unless the question is asking about more than one type. However, one may use + when asking about gender discrimination or + for discrimination based on sexual orientation, for example.


Q: Should we merge some or all of these tags, or should we keep them separate?

The separate tags relating to discrimination should not be merged, because having the separate tags is useful due to the number of questions.

See, About certain overlapping tags for [transportation]? for a case where some rarely used tags were merged.

3

Yes, they do as they inform about the specifics of what is happening and are generally a worse case then discrimination by itself. If the question is running into a tag limit I would suggest removing the more general tags and stick with the more specific.

If a question is tagged with and I would suggest removing as it is redundant. You can do the same for posts tagged with

-4

As I argued here I think should be removed because it has two meanings one involving the idea of racial superiority and one not and the dictionaries seem to favour the definition which incorporates the idea of superiority whereas most people that I know just think it means the same as racial discrimination which, of course, can be based on ideas of racial superiority but more usually is based on dislike or lack of understanding of difference.

So the predominant dictionary definition of actually defines it as a very narrow sub-set of the alternative dictionary definition which - in my experience - is the meaning it has to most people.

Often people who agree think they disagree just because they are using in different senses.

With regard to on balance I think that should stay because there is a particular phenomenon of anti-Jewish prejudice which conflates the government of the modern state of Israel with Jews as a "race" and Judaism as a religion, so that British Jews in London might be abused by people protesting against the policies of the government of Israel in relation to the Palestinian territories. In the UK in recent years this has been a big issue in the Labour Party (one of the two main political parties in Great Britain) so I think it merits its own tag.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .