Talk:Diversity ideologies

A fact from Diversity ideologies appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that diversity ideologies are intended to reduce prejudice, but can backfire and promote more hostility instead?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diversity ideologies.

Wikipedia

New page created

Hello! I have created this page on diversity ideologies and their effects on intergroup relations for a graduate seminar in social psychology. As this is my first time writing a Wikipedia page, I would appreciate any feedback to improve it. Thank you!--Gloriaqiao (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left comments on your talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

" ... that diversity ideologies are intended to reduce prejudice but can backfire and promote more hostility instead?" Plaut, V. C.; Thomas, K. M.; Hurd, K.; Romano, C. A. (2018). "Do Color Blindness and Multiculturalism Remedy or Foster Discrimination and Racism?". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 27 (3): 200–206. doi:10.1177/0963721418766068.

Created by Gloriaqiao (talk). Self-nominated at 04:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No QPQ needed. New enough, long enough, but looking at Diversity ideologies#Majority group resistance, I could not verify the hook. Also, I haven't done a check of the language against the sources. --evrik ^(talk) 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi evrik, thank you so much for taking the time to review this page and provide feedback! As you suggested, I have replaced bare references on the page with {{cite journal}}, and added external links at the end. I also slightly modified the hook so that the first part (prejudice reduction) is reflected in the lead section and the second part (backfiring) is reflected in the sections of intergroup interactions under colorblindness and majority group resistance under multiculturalism. Gloriaqiao (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New enough, long enough. It passes the earwig test. I added the reference I believe supports your hook. I am asking for someone else to look at this. It is a rather dense and lengthy piece. --evrik ^(talk) 16:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read the wonderfully open access journal article, and the clearest statement I found that supports the hook is: "Thus, group identification leads to greater threat perception and once threat is perceived it leads to less support for immigrants and ethnic minorities". Seems alright, except throughout the article, there's a large focus on self-identification playing a part, and the role of institutionalized distinctions affecting perceptions of multiculturalism. There are also places where the theory is disputed. However, given the limited authority in the hook with "can", I think it's covered. But there is little discussion in the journal article of prejudice, the first part of the hook, that's not in relation to past studies, unless I'm missing something. Is there another source? Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik and Kingsif: The nominator hasn't edited since the day of the nomination, so this may have to proceed without them. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--evrik ^(talk) 04:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should pass this nomination just yet, Kingsif raised some concerns and they don't appear to have been addressed yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator hasn't been around, and this is a very specialist topic, this nomination may have stalled... Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the editor was a student at a class that has already ended, and thus they appear to be unlikely to return to Wikipedia. I would suggest that an editor who is an expert on the subject matter be consulted and asked if they would be willing to adopt the nomination. Also a courtesy ping to RebeccaGreen who has done a great job at rescuing DYKs in the past. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), who works with students in courses, to see whether anything can be done on the Wiki Ed end on this nomination (there are other abandoned nominations Wiki Ed has helped with). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the instructor and the student who created the article to see if they can stop by and help. I'm not sure if either of them will see the email right away and have time (I believe they're still on winter break), but hopefully they will be able to address things. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read through this and though the hook was cited, and the issues addressed. It is very dense reading, but I think it can pass. --evrik ^(talk) 20:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian (Wiki Ed): it's been just over a week since your last comment, were you ever able to receive a reply from either the instructor or the student? If no response is ever forthcoming, I would suggest that we should seek expert attention from an editor who is well-versed in this topic, in case they'd want to address the issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator had created the article as part of a class which has since ended, and has not edited Wikipedia since then. Issues remain unaddressed, and requests for adoption by another editor have thus far have not been responded to. Unless another editor decides to adopt this and address the concerns, it is with regret that the nomination is now marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Kingsif: Hi all, thank you for your attention to and help with this nomination! I am very sorry for my late response to your comments -- I have been traveling recently and have just returned to school. To address the concerns previously mentioned, the journal article indeed did not answer both parts of the hook, so I am proposing to use a different source in support of the nomination, which is a recently published review article that summarizes past research on how diversity ideologies can reduce prejudice in some cases but backfire in others. I would appreciate if any editor could review the nomination again, but please let me know if I should submit a new nomination because the current one is closed. Thank you again! --Gloriaqiao (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloriaqiao: I'm sure we can make it work - what's the other source? Nothing's been added to the article? Kingsif (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journal article was already cited on the Wikipedia page (reference #2), and I added its bibliography to the nomination above.--Gloriaqiao (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the sourcing issues can be addressed then the nomination can still pass. Best of luck that things will turn out well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloriaqiao: If you could add the appropriate source to the information in the article that needs it, to support the hook. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator has now responded, I'm replacing the closure tick with a more suitable one to prevent this from being closed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I have just made that source citation addition to the "Majority group resistance" subsection's first sentence per Gloriaqiao's edits above; the sentence is quite similar to the hook here. Can you please check to see whether this satisfies the issue you raised? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That should be alright - other note is that the lead needs work, but suitable for DYK. Kingsif (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]