Talk:Global majority

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 GGT (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Westminster City Council in London has adopted "global majority" as a more inclusive term than BAME or "ethnic minority"? Source: Beal, James (25 November 2022). "Westminster council rebrand dubs minorities 'global majority'". The Times. Archived from the original on 25 November 2022.
  • ALT1: ... that when the Westminster City Council in London agreed to use "global majority" as an inclusive term, a Conservative MP called it "deeply sinister"? Source: Beal, James (25 November 2022). "Westminster council rebrand dubs minorities 'global majority'". The Times. Archived from the original on 25 November 2022.
  • ALT2: ... that when the Westminster City Council in London agreed to use "global majority" as a more inclusive term than BAME or "ethnic minority," a Conservative MP called it "deeply sinister"? Source: Beal, James (25 November 2022). "Westminster council rebrand dubs minorities 'global majority'". The Times. Archived from the original on 25 November 2022.
  • Reviewed: Amazonotrema

Created by Caorongjin (talk). Self-nominated at 17:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Needs to feature information from more than just the UK to comply with WP:GLOBALIZE.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Needs to mention London for context and link to the term "BAME" (which isn't well known outside of the UK).

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A few issues remain. SounderBruce 08:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

• SounderBruce thanks. As they are fairly simple, I've updated the two hook comments above. Re: the globalize point, there is a citation to an article with reference to Canadian use of visible minority. But I agree this can be made more explicit (as with US usage). —Caorongjin 💬 09:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
• @SounderBruce: I've added some sections on Canada and the United States to broaden the discussion. Are there any outstanding issues? —Caorongjin 💬 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Caorongjin: Some of the citations (a Medium blog, Global Sisters) aren't reliable. The article also seems to lack criticism of the term's use in the US and Canada, so both of this issue remains unresolved. SounderBruce 05:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• @SounderBruce: I've dropped the Global Sisters. The Medium blog is self-published, but has been cited by scholarly works. So in my view, it seems to fall under the reliable in specific contexts bucket? I have created a talk section for this point. With regards to the criticism of the term's use in the US and Canada, I have not found anything. This may lead to the conclusion that those sections should be removed, which is fine on one level. But they are there to address your point to WP:GLOBALIZE. The irony, is the whole point of the subject is around the a particular understanding of WP:BIAS, but the reliable source material is only pointing in a particular direction. I feel like that point is between a rock and a hard place, and would be grateful for any further thoughts on how to improve on that. —Caorongjin 💬 09:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• In that case, please tone down the use of pro-use language such as "helpful way" or "disempowered and subordinated". SounderBruce 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
• @SounderBruce: I've tried to tone it down and bring some of the criticisms to the more general discussion. I think it is more neutral now, but do let me know if you think more is needed. —Caorongjin 💬 15:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• The article looks better, but upon further review the two hooks have their own issues: ALT0 needs to use something time-neutral, as "is adopting" could be problematic if this runs a bit late; ALT1 doesn't really need to name the MP by name, as they don't seem to be a major political figure and could simply be referred to as "a Conservative Party MP". SounderBruce 04:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• @SounderBruce: Per your suggestions, I have made the slight amendments to the two hooks above. I have also added an ALT2 that combines the two. —Caorongjin 💬 09:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• ALT2 looks good to go. SounderBruce 06:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help!—Caorongjin 💬 09:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Medium Post

At the moment there is a reference to a Medium post which may be seen to fail the test of a WP:RS. However, it also comes up as cited by scholarly works through Google Scholar. Does this mean that it is reliable in context, based on WP:RS/AC or WP:UBO? I would normally not have a problem removing the Medium reference, but it helpfully elaborates on the historical binaries of POC, and no other reliable sources note this. But is that a moot point and is it still considered unreliable, despite contextual points? —Caorongjin 💬 09:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

References