Contents

Talk:Social justice warrior: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:56, 23 April 2016

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Social justice warrior. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Social justice warrior at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social justice warrior article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 11 days

Social justice warrior is currently a Culture, sociology and psychology good article nominee. Nominated by — Cirt (talk) at 13:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 4, 2014 Proposed deletion Kept October 5, 2014 Proposed deletion Deleted November 28, 2014 Articles for deletion Merged January 28, 2016 Articles for deletion Kept April 7, 2016 WikiProject approved revision Diff to current version Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 7, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in August 2015, the term "social justice warrior" was one of several new words and phrases added to Oxford Dictionaries?

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Feminism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from hereorhere Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Linguistics Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Sociology: Social Movements Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 20 January 2016, see discussion. Merge to Social justice, 18 November 2014, see discussion.

Template:Find sources notice

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that this should be sentence case, per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and common usage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social justice warrior → Social Justice Warrior – There has recently been dispute over how the phrase should be capitalized. Per WP:UCRN, the most common name should be used. A search for "social justice warrior" on DuckDuckGo shows that of the first 2 pages of results, 55 use "Social Justice Warrior" and only 12 use "Social justice warrior" or "social justice warrior". We should follow the capitalization that is more prevalent in usage. SSTflyer 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLEFORMAT says to use sentence case, and WP:UCN doesn't say anything about how things are capitalized. I'm leaning towards weakly opposing the move request, although if the capitalization is used consistently in the sources for the article maybe it would make sense to follow that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've scanned thru the online available sources to the article. The majority use sentence case, the only ones that seem to not use sentence case are MTV (inconsistently uses both), Boing Boing (consistently upper cases first letters), HuffPo (one use, capitals) Mary Sue (one use, in capitals). There are a couple that use it as a proper noun when talking about a video game. All of the rest (15 or so, didn't keep a running count) seem to prefer sentence case. Including the OED. — Strongjam (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:POTENTIAL, we do not only judge based on sources currently in the article. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – no basis for capitalization per WP:NCCAPSorMOS:CAPS, so leave it lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Oxford University Press uses: "social justice warrior" = lowercase. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not follow what a single source uses. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but it's quite a strong single source. Just wanted to bring attention to that particular one. In reality, the majority of secondary sources do indeed use the lowercase term, as mentioned by other respondents above and below. — Cirt (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Don't see a compelling reason to capitalise all letters. It may be frequently shortened to 'SJW', but that doesn't mean it's a proper noun. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The article shows that there are many people called social justice warriors, not merely one grand Social Justice Warrior working alone like BatmanorSuperman. Here we merely have "importance capitalization" or "respect capitalization", not proper-name capitalization. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Social Justice Warriors" (in this form of capitalization) is frequently used, similar to for example Asian Americans. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Asia" and "America" are proper-names, and in English (but not in French) by customary usage their derivative ethnic adjectives keep the capital. The words "social" and "justice" and "warrior" are each not proper-names. In German, and formerly in Danish, this "importance capitalization" went to its apotheosis and capitalizing all nouns. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another example would be Apple Watch. Is "Watch" a proper name? SSTflyer 11:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the product name is "Apple Watch" so it's a proper name, hence both words are capitalized. Similarly "tiger" is not a proper noun, but "Detroit Tigers" is a proper name. — Strongjam (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's closer to Jewish-American Princess where a stereotyped pejorative is capitalized. It's a pejorative identity being applied to an individual and the identity is capitalized to separate it from non-pejorative uses. --DHeyward (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The hits for "social justice warrior" on DuckDuckGo linked in the OP don't support this proposal. The vast majority use sentencing casing within the article. The search results are only displaying titles. PermStrump(talk) 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:NCCAPS. These are not proper nouns. Also Permstrumps point is strong. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per WP:MOSCAPS. From what I gather from the article, it's a (pejorative) term to describe someone, not a movement or occupation. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it is reported as a proper name stereotyping pejorative. They are not split up, as in '"social justice" warrior' but used as a group identifier. Not using caps is the same as saying "liberal Democrat" vs. "Liberal Democrat." "Liberal" is capitalized when it's the basis of a title for a group like the political party in the EU, but not capitalized when used to describe a viewpoint. "Social Justice Warrior" is a group label, not a description of viewpoints. Jewish-American Princess is capitalized as another stereotyping pejorative proper name. Our article gives no other definition of "Social Justice Warrior" than as a pejorative stereotyped group identity. No one confuses "he's a warrior for social justice" with "he's a Social Justice Warrior." The first is not clear whether the meaning would be a pejorative, but the second, through the use of capitalization, is very clearly intended to denote the pejorative use as a proper name for a group. Not using capitals implies that "social justice warrior" is not always a pejorative proper name label for stereotyping individuals and that it somehow reflects their individual viewpoints. Proper names are capitalized per WP:MOSPN and do not use sentence case even if the proper name includes common nouns (i.e. South Africa, not south Africa). --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not a proper name. No reason to capitalise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – No need. The majority of RSes seem to favor lowercase, and plenty of pejorative and slang terminology is uncapitalized. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because I agree that it does function as a Proper Noun as it functions as a title, ergo, should use title case. Zombiedude347 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it function as a title? It's a term to describe someone, not a movement or a name. Just like "proper noun" (and not "Proper Noun"), it isn't capitalised. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a proper name, not noun. If it weren't, the common nouns in it could be rearranged without change of meaning. "warrior for social justice" is never used as a replacement for "Social Justice Warrior." It always defines a group or we ned to rewrite the article so that it's not a pejorative stereotype. --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No evidence that use as a proper name outweighs sentence-case usage. clpo13_(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a pejorative stereotype like "Jewish-American Princess?" --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

SSTflyer (talk · contribs) removed DIFF the WP:WikiProject Women from this talk page.

I strongly feel this topic is directly related to women and feel it should be retained on this talk page.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. While social justice often concerns women's rights and SJWs often promote social justice, this topic is not directly related to women in general. SSTflyer 12:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WikiProject Women, they state in their intro: "Welcome to WikiProject Women! We're a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. WikiProject Women brings Wikipedia users of all genders, sexual orientations, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of women's content across Wikipedia. Know that we warmly welcome you to participate in the project's scope, whether or not you are a project member." This indicates a wide project scope. Let's please keep this WikiProject listing on this talk page. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree the article isn't only or even primarily about women, it does focus on that aspect often; "women's rights" is mentioned in literally the first sentence for example. This seems just as relevant to WikiProject Women as it does most of the other wikiprojects listed above. SamWalton (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Samwalton9, thank you. And also feminism is directly related to women, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cirt on this. The tag belongs there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Headbomb, most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So we now admit this topic is about social justice (did ya spot the clue in the title?) but still refuse to link here from Social justice? How bizarre. Equinox (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox:Better? — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed the sentence mentioning the Chrome extension from the lead with the reason that I didn't think it flowed very well with the rest of the lead. However, upon reviewing the rest of the article, I don't think we should mention the extension at all, given the lack of sources (besides the one cited, from The Mary Sue) that link the extension to the main topic. Any comments? APerson (talk!) 04:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Pinging Cirt, who copyedited the sentence and put it back in the lead.)[reply]

 Done, I've removed that material, per DIFF. @APerson:I admit I thought it would be nice to keep in the article, but unfortunately you're quite correct, best to wait and see if there's a greater preponderance of sourcing on that particular factoid. Thank you for your most polite and constructive feedback here on the talk page! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, any time! APerson (talk!) 04:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes it seem that all social justice warriors are saints persecuted by heathen misogynist trolls. This article should provide a balanced view of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs)

It appears above claims by this user are not backed up by sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the language chosen by the above complainant in order to complain quote; "This article makes it seem that all social justice warriors are saints persecuted by heathen misogynist trolls." -- appears to betray that particular user's POV about the subject matter. My belief is this article should reflect reliable secondary sources on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EvergreenFir, thank you. The complainant user has again refused to engage in talk page discussion. I note I've attributed the source directly to the person who said it themselves. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is socially progressive myself and has no time for sexism, racism or any similar prejudices, nevertheless I agree with the first person - this article is strongly biased. The narrative of this article is more or less what the first complainant stated. In actual fact, while it's true that SJW is sometimes used to slur anyone advocating progressive views, it's not the only use. The term covers a spectrum, with some people reserving its usage for those who advocate extreme positions, e.g. the idea that a white guy dressing up in a Mariachi costume on Halloween is 'cultural appropriation that mocks a marginalized, oppressed ethnic group purely for the amusement of priviledged white people'. We've all seen this kind of mindset expressing itself around the net, so don't pretend it doesn't exist. 95.149.93.114 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP above makes good points. I also noticed a disturbing slant in the way the article is focused on and written from one particular point of view.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article it seems to include a lot of definitions of the term, which are in agreement with what the IP is saying. So I'm not seeing the issue at all. Brustopher (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with EvergreenFir and Brustopher. Above complainants have failed to present reliable secondary sources to back up their spurious arguments. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Brustopher (talk · contribs) for splitting off material into new subsection.

I tweaked the sub sect title to "Reappropriation" as that's the main topic for the corresponding Wikipedia article on the concept.

Great idea for new sub section by Brustopher (talk · contribs) !

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw thanks m8! Brustopher (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]