Template:Did you know nominations/Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by feminist (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations

 * ... that pro-diversity organizational messages are threatening to Whites and may contribute to the resistance to diversity efforts in organizations?
 * ALT1:... explicitly including Whites as a part of multiculturalism may help to reduce resistance to diversity efforts in organizations?

Created by Makotanaka (talk). Self-nominated at 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg--The hooks need citations.Otherwise everything is okay, QPQ is not needed, Article is sufficiently large, IAR on submission delay.Thanks for contributing — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg, as is a student who appears to have made that article as part of a class, we're unlikely to get a response. However, ALT0 seems to be backed up by this cited sentence in the article: "Another line of research found that members of high-status groups (i.e. Whites) reacted adversely to pro-diversity organizational messages when compared to non-Whites.[10]" ALT1 seems to refer to this section of the article, although it would need adjustment (precise language/citation) to work with the hook. Therefore, off of the basis of your review, I'm going to strike ALT1 and approve ALT0. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hook: "... that pro-diversity organizational messages are threatening to Whites and may contribute to the resistance to diversity efforts in organizations"?
 * Obvious points about the hook
 * Such messages are clearly not threatening to all white people, only those who feel threatened by them (the article uses text such as "they may be resisting the diversity messages" or "evidence suggests that ...")
 * "Diversity" means far more than racial diversity, it also includes gender diversity (as the article even says!) - why would white women feel threatened by a gender based pro-diversity message? They wouldn't.
 * Ditto for, say, pro-diversity messages based on, say, sexual orientation or anything else other than race.


 * The article
 * Unsourced controversial statements - i.e. "Whites higher in need to belong will view multiculturalism less favorably."
 * Synthesis: "For example, research suggests that White Americans who strongly identify with their ethnic group are more likely to respond to multiculturalism with increased social dominance orientation and prejudice. However, among those Whites who did not strongly identify with their ethnic group, colorblindness was associated with increased group-based biases." Think about that and what it's saying about all white people...

Pinging:. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * All in all it's a horrible hook; there must be something better in the article that doesn't have crap like "threatening to Whites"....  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, since the entire article reads like a research paper; unsurprising since it appears to be a student project. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Classic case of "failure is not an option" at DYK then. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pulled - awful hook. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This was pulled from queue due to the many reasons listed at WT:DYK and copied here (in the compressed section above): not only major hook issues, but for issues in the article including unsourced controversial statements and synthesis, both of which are not allowed for DYK articles. (I struck the original hook, which proved problematic.) As was noted there, the article was a student project that was submitted to DYK in the final week of the course, which ended December 15, and the nominator hasn't edited since submission day. The article was also nominated quite late: created on November 25 and not nominated until December 10, eight days late, a bit past the usual extensions we give first-time nominators. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), who was the liaison with this course, and with whom I've been in contact regarding GA nominations for this course. (I did remove this article's GAN, also made on December 10, given the severity of the issues raised; there's no way it could meet the GA criteria.) Absent someone doing significant work on the article, I don't imagine that this can run at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Marking for closure; problems still exist after eleven days and no edits have been made to address them. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Give me a few minutes. feminist (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, this article is more problematic than I assumed. It's better than nothing, but I don't see a good reason to extend this any longer. feminist (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)