Talk:Diversity Champions

This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2021.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

POV

There are serious problems with this article. I have tagged as appropriate and we can see if anything is salvageable here. I'm not going to go into meticulous detail except to highlight the bit that says "The scheme claims that gender identity is a protected characteristic and carries legal protection under the Equality Act 2010;[3] however, this has been criticised as misleading and possibly illegal advice" which I see as spectacularly misleading and POV. This has recently been decided by the courts and they found that, far from being a "misleading or illegal" claim, that that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. As currently written the article seems to give credence to give the exact opposite impression. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not an expert on the issue, so sorry if the article is misleading. I have copied in some extra information on here but would appreciate any input you think could balance the article. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right after that quote it goes on to explain why their advice has been called incorrect, with sources. I'm not seeing any evident factual inaccuracy here, and a POV tag is vague and it's not clear what exactly is supposed to be added. A merge with the main Stonewall article may be worthwhile and help alleviate perceived POV issues, however. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall's advice was called incorrect by a commission from a University, clarified that since it's not the same as a court saying it. Rab V (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this article should be a section in Stonewalls' main page? as it is about their scheme specifically and not more general 'diversity champions in the workplace' HR activities. It could be in the section on controversies or specifically about reactions to this scheme. Editors on that page may have views. Melissa Highton (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need to decide what there is to say about the Diversity Champions programme. At the moment the article says next to nothing about what it actually is or does. At the moment the article is just a coatrack for a big heap of controversy without saying what about the programme people are getting mad about. This makes me think that maybe there is not enough content for an article that is truly about the Diversity Champions programme and that the controversies here are primarily aimed at Stonewall as a whole and only very incidentally linked to this programme of theirs in particular. This suggests that a merge might be the best approach. OTOH, if there is more to be said about the programme then that would change my opinion. The Stonewall article actually says a little more (but still not much) about what the programme actually is so I'm going to copy that here on the grounds that that is better than nothing. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this content would be better in the main Stonewall page. AndyGordon (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV is improving as more refs from sources other than Times, Telegraph and Conservative commentatorsMelissa Highton (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]