Talk:Social justice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Social justice vs. Social justice rhetoric

I reverted the recent revert of the page because of the way in which the term "social justice" was used. As the term is controversial more neutral language is needed. Many do not see social justice as true justice and as such it would not be neutral to speak of it as though it exists in it's own right. It may very well, but while the controversy remains it has to be refered to more abstractly. Think of it analogously to speaking of pink unicorns. Those who do not agree social justice is real would think of the concept analogously to that. As such it would not be objective to speak of pink unicorns in a way that implied they were real.Spoisp —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

The problem is that "social justice rhetoric" is a phrase that somebody just made up. It hasn't been used in any reliable sources. Nice try, but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit was poor but so was the original. In regards to WP:MADEUP mentioned in the edit summary, the current lead is garbage due to the lack of verifiability. I tried fiddling wiht it awhile back but someone seemes attached to the unreferenced info. How about we find some sources?Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Malik, if I understand you correctly, your argument is basically that the phrase "social justice rhetoric" upsets the idea of NPOV due to the connotation of the term "rhetoric." Just to throw my two cents in, I don't think that "rhetoric" has an overly negative connotation... neither of the versions in the edit history ("social justice" presuming support of social justice programs vs "social justice rhetoric" being arguably opposed to social justice programs) is perfectly neutral, but IMHO the later is somewhat closer to neutral. As a newer user though, I won't go and revert it myself, but I just wanted to share my thoughts.The Gopher Dude (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

from the looks of it I think it wasn't meant to be used as a "term" so much as just a description. In any case the phrase seems to comes up on google in a lot of places. I added a link in where they refer to it just to make sure it's sourced. I reverted it if that is ok with everyone. jfraatz(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

"Social justice rhetoric" gets about 745 Google hits. Hardly "a lot of places". By contrast, "Social justice" gets 9.5 million hits. At Google Books, "Social justice rhetoric" gets nearly 100 hits, and "Social justice" gets almost 12,000. Google Books found 87 books with "Social justice" in their titles, and none with "Social justice rhetoric" in their title. Evidently the expression "Social justice rhetoric" is not used by more than a small minority of people. I'm going to restore the previous lede.

In response to Cptnono, I'm working on finding sources to help draft a better lede. Please feel free to do the same. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there some other wording that would be acceptable to everyone here? I still think that by always just leaving it as simply "social justice," it sort of presumes support of social justice policies/programs. But "social justice rhetoric" apparently isn't acceptable to everyone since it looks like it's supposed to be a specific/formal/technical term. Just off the top of my head, perhaps something like "rhetoric about social justice," or "arguments in favor of social justice"? Again, just my two cents... please excuse my noob-ish-ness.The Gopher Dude (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries about being a noob or not and fresh eyes might be needed. No wording is acceptable without sources but we have not been able to summarize what "social justice" is. The title is "Social Justice" and we really need to find sources to summarize what it is. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're never going to be able to come up with a meaningful definition of "Social Justice", because the term itself has no meaning. It's not a term of art intended to explain, it's a rhetorical device intended to generate an emotional reaction.

--jdege (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be summarized. It can even be mentioned that it is spin employed by the left. Last time I tried anything ti was reverted. I'm thinking about blanking the lead until something that meets standard is in. Someone mentioned that there was a previous discussion with consensus but it just wasn't a sufficient outcome.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive, et. al.

Archived talk prior to above thread. I don't want to get involved in the distasteful debate here, with the repellent attempts to cast the subject as "Social Justice Rhetoric", an obvious right wing slant on the topic. Clearly, there is an objective thing, corresponding to the article title and it would be different from any rhetoric pro or con. No doubt the individuals pushing their opinion that the very term is an offense to them will continue to do so unless there's an intervention to enforce NPOV. Lycurgus (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

usage before 1848

The term social justice appears in the words of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey here: [1]. עדירל (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I further note that the term appears in the federalist No. 7. That dates us back to 1788. עדירל (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to match this with "Nursing ethics: across the curriculum and into practice By Janie B. Butts, Karen Rich", page 14. עדירל (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition, and overall bias

The definition of "social justice" itself is unsourced, and smacks of neologism: all justice is social. There is none where there is only one person. The tone of the article appears biased toward promotion of the concept. Suggest total rewrite to eliminate non-NPOV tone. Kasyapa (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)kasyapa

That'd be hard to do, because the term was created as a tool of political propaganda, and has no underlying meaning.

--jdege (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whose propaganda was Alexander Hamilton promoting when he used the term? How about Earl Grey? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton was a Marxist, didn't you know? --The Cunctator (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

is it OK to LOL on wikipedia talk? ROFL! It is true however that the idea of social justice is more often than not used as a political tool (in messaging tactics) rather than a philosophical position. This can be seen in the way recent conservative talking heads have taken to deconstructing the meaning of social justice. it means different things to different people. Perhaps this merits a section on usage in contemporary politics? - Anonymous Amateur Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.96.197 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck has his own theory

With Glenn Beck's recent attack on social justice as a common theme of Naziism and communism, I'd advise everybody to watch this article with particular care. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was actually Wallis's blog that was cited by the New York Times, and many other media sources / opinion pieces that escalated the visibility of the incident. It is also important to cite his coverage of Fritz Kuhn and Father Coughlin which he used to justify running away from congregations that use "social justice" as a pillar of their mission statements. Bachcell (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Page views indicates a rise from 2,000 to 8,000 after the Glenn Beck spat on this articleBachcell (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all this nonsense about Glenn Beck is a great example of WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM. Beck didn't offer any meaningful criticism of social justice, he just made it the subject of one of his frequent rants. Why does it merit two paragraphs in this article? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right. Beck's rants merit absolutely nothing in this article, so I've removed the content in question.UBER ^(talk) 06:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Glenn Beck stuff is nonsense. However, perhaps it would make sense to include a well thought out critique or critics section that cites REAL scholars. Would you agree? - Anonymous Amateur Contributor

By all means! Sanitize this article from all criticism!!! What pointless people you are.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets be fair, though Glenn Becks efforts are quite misinformed, its easy to see how hes confused. Social Justice and Communism have MANY parralels and really are quite similar. Their difference lies only in a matter of degree. Social Justice is the idea that we should bring the richest and the poorest closer to the middle class by using regulations, but that we should generally let the free market system do its thing outside of that. Communism says the same thing, but that instead of some regulations to help only the poorest of society, we should force everyone to have exactly the same economic conditions. Its the difference between believing in a minimum wage and believing in a fixed wage for everyone. To a free market capitalist like Beck, both seem pretty unamerican. And you have to admit, hes not without cause. The poor implementation of well intentioned, but badly written social justice bills is largely what is destroying America right now (Social Security, for example) and there really are quite a few communists mixed in with the social justice democrats these days. Its getting so bad that at times its hard to tell which is which anymore. People also tend to demonize communism. Communism is nothing more than another idea. An idea that proved to be stupid. We dont say that people who believed that the world was flat are going to hell, they were just mistaken, thats all. Whether the ideals of social justice are mistaken or not, and whether pure capitalism is really the way to go remains to be seen as neither philosophy has really ever been given a fair shot at governing society without lots of other factors being pulled in to the mix and distorting the results. 97.118.13.121 (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Matt

AMEN!!!

Another wikipedia lie

This comment "The term appeared before the 1800s, including in the Federalist Papers..." is an obvious distortion typical of the political slant of wikipedia. In the Federalist Papers, No. 7, Hamilton uses the term to refer to the preservation of property rights, and to include the citation here is clearly misleading, and a deliberate distortion.129.133.127.244 (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In Federalist 7, Hamilton describes "laws in violation of private contracts" as being "atrocious breaches of moral obligation and social justice". Whereas the modern advocates of "social justice" argue that "social justice" requires violations of private contract.

Just because Hamilton used the same words, does not by any means implies that he was referring to the same concept.

--jdege (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. As such i've removed this section, which in any case was original research. Whoever added this section merely went to google books and searched for the term, found a few dates before 1800 and used that as (original research) the foundations for this section. It's like searching for "black hole", finding a reference from 3000 BC and saying that the term and concept "black hole" was first coined by the egyptians in 3000 BC. I found a source that discusses the origins of the term and concept and have added in a section to reflect this reference.Utopial (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Social Justice defined

(Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Edition, online, Oxford University Press)

• social

· adj. 1 of or relating to society or its organization. Ø of or relating to rank and status in society: a woman of high social standing.

• justice

· n. 1 just behaviour or treatment. Ø the quality of being just. 2 the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.

Thus Social Justice defines or relates to rank and status in behavior and law. One's rank and status defines how one is judged. The higher the rank and status defined in society, the more you can get away with things that the lower rank and lower status can not get away with. Social Justice is "un-equal justice"? Jrcrin001 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your own original theory, and irrelevant to this article. It's also a sterling example of the etymological fallacy at its worst. (I'd hate to see your reinvention of social democracy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Social" as an adjective in political discourse adds no meaning, and is intended to add no meaning. It is intended to confuse, and to rob the underlying term of the meaning which it had always had. "Social justice" is a repudiation of the underlying principles of justice, "social democracy" is the same.

--jdege (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source for that?

bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

To add further to this discussion, and hopefully to a more complete article, I provide the following as research. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Social Justice defined via the top web cites via Bing & Google.

• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Social%20Justice

Dictionary.com Main Entry: social justice Part of Speech: n

• Definition: the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society

• http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm

If you ask a lot of people to define social justice you’re going to get many different definitions. Definitions will be based on a variety of factors, like political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy. If you ask a postmodernist about this concept, he or she is likely to tell you it’s a fairytale that is not in any way achievable in any form of society.

(What folows in this article shows that there is no one definition of Social Justice. It can mean what you want it to mean. From the far left in politics - not covered in the wiki article - to its popular use in religion, immigration, racial issues, et cetera.)

• http://www.answers.com/topic/social-justice

The distribution of the benefits and the hardships in society, together with the way they are allocated. Geographers are particularly concerned with the spatial expression of social justice; where do the advantaged and disadvantaged groups live, why do they live there, and what is the connection between their place of residence and their future advantage or disadvantage (D. Harvey 1996; D. M. Smith 1994, 2000).

• http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/social-justice.html

Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.

• http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicjustice-defined.htm

Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.

• http://www.justphilanthropy.org/resources/SocialJustice.pdf

The term “social justice” has roots also in law and political theory. This quote captures the basics:

Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law.[1] … This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust." … In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] … Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of "fair play."

[1] James. W. Vice, "Neutrality, Justice, and Fairness," (Loyola University Chicago), available at http://www.ombuds.uci.edu/JOURNALS/1997/neutrality.html. [2] Nicholas Rescher, Distributive Justice. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1982), 5. Both cited in: Maise, Michelle. “Principles of Justice and Fairness.” Beyond Intractability. Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. 1 Jun. 2005. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/development_conflict_theory/>.

SEE ALSO:

• http://www.reachandteach.com/content/index.php?topic=socialjustice

NPOV dispute - Islam section

I was reading this article trying to get a better understanding of the term "social justice" and I noticed that it includes a several paragraph "advertorial" for Islam and how it promotes social justice, that contains no citations whatsoever (except for cryptic Qu'ranic verses). It is fine to include a neutral and referenced overview of the Islamic views on social justice - but it is not fine to reflect the writers' personal belief that Islam is the be all and end all of social justice. Examples:

Islam is both a religion and a comprehensive way of life and exemplifies justice for its practitioners. "It is a formula that satisfies anyone’s moral and spiritual needs as well as natural aspirations"

Unless someone can improve this and make it neutral and useful, I nominate that the section be heavily edited down to a stub for someone to improve according to Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality (no religious glorification) and proper citations.Clearlight418 (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with NPOV. It's a sourcing problem, and I agree with you: the section is unsourced. Be bold and prune it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis in Islam section

The following statement is in the Islam section:

However, other aspects of Islam emphasize overt discrimination against non-Muslims (e.g., the dhimmah)[17] - a practice seemingly incompatible with most contemporary notions of social justice.

I think it represents synthesis because a true statement that non-Muslims are discriminated against in Islamic societies is juxtaposed against true statements about Islam and social justice, without any source making a connection between them. There is no reason for the joining word "However" and there is no source for "a practice seemingly incompatible with most contemporary notions of social justice"—in fact, unless a source mentions dhimmis in connection with social justice, there's no reason for this article to mention them either. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it is synthesis. But for me the more glaring problem was the sourcing (Andrew Bostom).VR _talk 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Delition WikiProject assessment

To those trying to tag this article for deletion, I suggest reading the instructions at WP:Prod Specifically "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD."

"To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article"

and also "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for 'uncontroversial' deletion"

Or even just the text of the "PROD" itself:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." I suggest this article is far from being a candidate for deletion. Those who are trying to delete it have the burden of proof. So, please, cease to reinclude the tag. In fact the page says: "If this template is removed, do not replace it" Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a prod tag - it has been nominated for AFD, so the tag has to remain until the discussion is closed. - Bilby (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PROD is just one approach to deletion. There is also WP:CSD and WP:AFD. The latter is what is happening currently. People cannot simply remove the tag to disagree. It requires discussion, which is taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_justice. Nominating for deletion also requires one of a particular set of rationales, which this one does not seem to have, but that's another story. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to both. There is lots to learn about processes and regulations. I did not mean any sharp reaction. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing the "social justice warrior" section

After reviewing the linked sources, all I can see is that the term was one coined during the Gamergate controversy, and has no traction outside of that. Personally, I think including that section in the article at all gives WP:UNDUE weight to a term only used in WP:FRINGE circles. I propose deletion of the entire section on those grounds. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

...the term was coined way before GG, possibly around 2011 if my personal memory can be trusted. So I really don't agree with you here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Do a Google News search for the term, the results are pretty impressive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did. Pretty much every instance of the term found is in scare quotes when talking about what persons/groups on the fringe seem to be fighting against. I see no in-depth coverage of the term. All indications seem to point to this being a non-notable insult. No place in an encyclopedia. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 18:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The first reference is an academic paper, have you missed it in your review? That reference is not connected to GamerGate, so your rationale for deleting the section doesn't hold. Diego (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's still a term that really is only used in WP:FRINGE circles. Using a policy paper from 2001 to give notability to this is a real stretch. If there is no indication that the term is in wide use outside of fringe groups, we really should just delete the section. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 18:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The term has appeared in numerous mainstream newspapers. Those are not fringe.

Also, article's content is not governed by notability. There was a Social Justice Warrior article that was merged into this one because of the consensus reached at its deletion discussion. Diego (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and to be frank, the arguments for keeping it are rather weak. I see no reliable sources stating that the term is used widely outside of fringe anti-feminist groups on reddit and chans. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the section, to be honest. WP:NEOLOGISM seems pertinent here. If necessary, the definition for the term can be folded into another section with only the academic source retained. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't even think the academic source is relevant. The academic source was more of a call to arms anyway for a movement which never panned out (not to mention that the source itself is from 2001; while all indications was that the term "SJW" didn't come into use anywhere until after 2010). --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make sense. If the academic article was written in 2001, it means that the term was in use before it was taken as a pejorative in Internet culture. The term also appeared in several books like Tim Dugdale's I Couldn't Care Less (1995) and Arthur Lipkin's Beyond Diversity Day(2004), and in advocacy magazines. Diego (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

None of that establishes that the term ever caught on actual activist circles. The current day reliable sources only show that it is use amongst fringe anti-feminist groups. As such, if there is any coverage of the term on this encyclopedia, it should be on pages that are about anti-feminism. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely remove. These cites don't really show that the term has any significant usage outside of being a WP:NEOLOGISM; one paper using the term (with no citations for it itself and no indication that it has any academic usage elsewhere) isn't really enough to support its inclusion here. Beyond that, reading it, I don't feel that the paper is talking about the same thing as the internet neologism; this is a common problem with articles no neologisms -- people eager to find sources for a term they feel they "know" is real search places like Google scholar until they find someone who has used the words from the neologism together, in any context (we had the same problem on Cultural Marxism, Involuntary Celibacy, etc -- lots of sources that happened to use the words but which, examined closely, weren't clearly talking about the same thing as the more recent ones, making any attempt to draw a connection between them a case of WP:SYNTH.) In this case, the fact that the paper is from 2001 while all other usages are over a decade later pretty clearly says, to me, that it's an unrelated use of the words and that connecting them is synthesis -- an attempt to try and use the juxtaposition of unrelated articles to assert that the neologism had a history or earlier meaning that isn't really asserted in any of the sources. (In fact, most of the sources that discuss its history say that it was coined as a pejorative neologism very recently.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The section was the result of a deletion discussion, where the consensus was to merge the Social Justice Warrior article. If you want to override the current consensus you'll have to address all the arguments present there, and notify the editors involved as they may be interested in further debating. Diego (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Merge conclusions to a deletion discussion don't become some sort of lasting, binding restriction on the target article; per WP:CONLIMITED, an AFD discussion determines only consensus local to the page brought to AFD (after all, it was only posted on that page; none of this page's editors were notified before the merge). Nothing determined there can dictate content on this page, which would require a local discussion here, and which can change later on as discussions here evolve -- a merge conclusion suggests adding the material to the target page, but if it lacks consensus for inclusion at that page, it'll get removed. This sort of situation (where an AFD closes with a merge, but it turns out that the material merged in has no place on the target article and eventually gets removed) is actually not uncommon. The history of how it ended up here is an interesting footnote, but irrelevant to current discussions. Of course, if you feel some of the arguments in there are relevant, you can make them here -- but simply pointing to the AFD and saying "This was already discussed!" isn't a valid argument, because merge AFD results aren't permanently binding on the target article in any special way or anything like that -- this article's content is determined by consensus here, not by older AFD debates. Likewise, there is no requirement to alert everyone who has ever participated in discussions before (certainly not people who participated in an AFD discussion for a different page and who never actually contributed to this one directly); they do not WP:OWN this article. And, finally, looking over the people who supported a merge, I don't actually see very many arguments for why it belongs here at all. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see clear consensus for removal here - I've restored it until consensus is reached. Per the arguments for keep/merge in the referenced AfD I support preserving it. 177.154.145.105 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not support this as its own section- I barely support including a definition. Given that a definition is pushing WP:UNDUE, and as a section it's pretty WP:POV, I've removed it. There's no consensus that this is necessary to include in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There was clear consensus to include it when it was included, several months ago. Now we need consensus to remove it, which isn't established. Please don't edit war. Cheers. 177.154.145.106 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no consensus to include on this page's archives. Beyond that, consensus can change; simply reverting with "this is against consensus" is never acceptable, especially not when you're referring to a months-old discussion on another page. If you want to revert, you must provide specific arguments that the person you're reverting can address. And as I said, a consensus on another page is not binding here, because it was never discussed here. I've taken a shot at removing the parts I particularly feel are WP:UNDUE while leaving the term itself somewhere in the article (which, by my reading, satisfies all the concerns you're raising) -- is that sufficient? --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Change requires consensus. The specific arguments against elimination can be found here. Your change is not sufficient - it's worse than removal because it misinforms the reader. The new text:

In Internet culture, social justice warrior has been used as a pejorative neologism for liberals, progressives, and anyone who advocates feminism online. Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a person believed to be overreacting to social inequality.

leads a reader to believe Bernie Sanders, John Edwards and Ralph Nader are all "social justice warriors." If they fit your understanding of the term I suggest you reexamine the sources. I'll revert to the consensus version unless there are substantive objections. 177.154.145.101 (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, we may have enough sources now for a standalone article. I'll see what I come up with. 177.154.145.101 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, per WP:CONLIMITED, a consensus reached elsewhere isn't binding on this page; a merge result for an AFD suggests adding the material to another page, but it must also have consensus for inclusion on that page, which it doesn't seem to have right now. Nor is there is no indication of consensus in that discussion for any particular wording. Therefore, saying that you will revert to the "consensus version" is meaningless -- there is no indication that that version ever enjoyed any particular consensus. And even if it had, per WP:CCC, you must give specific reasons for each aspect of my edits that you disagree with -- if there are no specific objections to any particular aspect of my changes, then they can be presumed to have consensus, because nobody objects. If you do have a specific objection, you need to raise it so we can hash it out! Regarding the one specific concern you did raise, my edits match what the current sources say; you can check them yourself if you're unclear. The Washington Post says that the term is "kind of shorthand insult for liberals and progressives"; Re/code says that it is used against anyone who argues for feminism online. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The sole referenced work in the 'social justice warrior' section is not to be cited without the authors' permission, per the first page. Has anyone sought or gained such permission? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if we had permission, citing this paper is unambiguously WP:UNDUE. There's nothing noteworthy about the paper and no indication of any significance beyond the fact that it happens to use those particular words; nor is there any indication that the term was used elsewhere. Citing it definitively (as if it represents some significant usage) is clearly WP:UNDUE, and arguably WP:OR in the sense that it's an attempt to use its usage in this paper to argue that the term has had meaningful usage prior to its emergence as a neologism. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Unambiguously undue" is your way of saying that you don't like its content? Academic articles are what establish due weight. There's no need to "argue" that the term had prior usage, the paper itself is prior usage. Diego (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, unambiguously undue as in we should not be having this section purely because one thing mentions it. It's simply not notable enough to be including when the reference base is as scant as it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The academic paper is "not" in "this section" (assumming you refer to a section about "Social Justice Warrior"s?) Usage of the academic paper is placed at the History section, completely independent of the modern web usage. It is "not" used to show any kind of "prior usage" with respect to anything newer. Diego (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not all academic papers are of equal weight; there's no indication of this paper's importance, so it's clearly undue. Who is Dixon E. Southworth? Where was this paper published? It seems to be a random presentation from a conference, not an academically-published paper; nothing in it indicates that the paper is describing the use of the term by anyone else -- the wording clearly indicates that Southworth feels they're coining it. Saying "it is academic" isn't sufficient; getting a conference paper published in a lesser forum is simple and means nothing. We certainly cannot cite a conference paper simply because its author uses a term; that is overwhelmingly WP:UNDUE. For another example of why, just look at the progression of the history section! We cite Luigi Taparelli, Thomas Aquinas, John Dewey, Roscoe Pound, Louis Brandeis, Friedrich von Hayek, and John Rawls. We describe major US Supreme Court decisions and describe major themes of modern thought according to their great thinkers. Then we cite a random conference paper by Dixon E. Southworth. Why are we giving Dixon E. Southworth weight equal to the things above it? It's clear just at a glance that the weight paid to this paper is extremely undue. As it says in WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." It is silly to suggest that Southworth is prominent; if, as you seem to be claiming, 'social justice warrior' is a viewpoint worth covering as something other than a neologism, then where are your prominent adherents? --Aquillion (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was using 'section' in the colloquial sense, not the Wiki-jargon sense. Sorry to have confused you! PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

With this edit you're essentially requiring a reference for the reference. We don't do that; there's no reason to place higher requirements for this reference than any of the others used in the article. It's certainly better than The social Justice Wiki or cmenzel's personal page, which I notice you didn't find a need to remove per WP:UNDUE, so either you're not too worried about the policy or at the very least you're applying double standards. Your other edits attributing use of the term to the author are fine, though. Meanwhile, the reference you claim provides insufficient weight is a peer-reviewed paper cited in the field of psychology, from a trusted professional member of the editorial board of a prestigious institution, for which the article was written. That's our highest standard with respect to WP:IRS, better than opinion pieces from magazines. Diego (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that objection amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're free to remove those other things if you want! But the claim this paper is being used for is more extreme -- we're essentially claiming that Dixon E. Southworth's call to action here is a major event in the history of social justice, which is, I think, absurd on its face. Therefore, that requires a higher degree of sourcing rather than just citing Southworth's call as a WP:PRIMARY source. WP:UNDUE requires that we evaluate the relative prominence of sources and advocates for viewpoints, and it is simply not true that Southworth is a prominent advocate -- you seem to be taking the position that all papers presented to conferences must be covered, no matter what, and this directly violates what WP:UNDUE says. WP:UNDUE is in addition to WP:RS and WP:V, not instead of it -- you're answering the latter two issues, but have completely and repeatedly ignored the first, no matter how many times I brought it up. Since you didn't really answer my point (you didn't make any attempt to assert that Southworth or this paper are prominent), you're not answering my objection. You must cite prominent adherents to a view in order to include it on the page, which you're still not doing. Essentially, by inserting this paper in that section, you are arguing that you feel that WP:DUE weight paid to relative aspects of the history of social justice should go like this:

• The different concepts of justice and its history as described by Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas.
• The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment, including Spinoza's writing and Thomas Paine's The Rights of Man
• Luigi Taparelli's writings on moral philosophy, John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism.
• John Dewey, Roscoe Pound and Louis Brandeis addressing the concept in the 20th century, and the impact it had on Supreme Court jurisprudence. Friedrich von Hayek dissenting. John Rawls writing on the concept.
• Dixon E. Southworth published a paper using the word.

Do you see the problem here? Do you feel that Southworth is WP:DUE weight alongside any of the things above him in that list? You are asserting that Southworth's paper has a place in the history of this concept alongside those writers and those key events in history. That is manifestly WP:UNDUE; as WP:UNDUE says, you mist find prominent adherents of a view in order to include it in the article. Southworth and his paper are not prominent. (If you want to assert that it is prominent, it should be easy for you to find a secondary source referencing it, in which case we can cite that instead.) In essence, in the context of discussing the subject's history, you're taking a WP:PRIMARY source and trying to argue that it has an important place in that history -- but you can't get that from the primary source itself; if you want to present Southworth's paper as a major event in the history of social justice, you need a WP:SECONDARY source discussing Southworth's importance to the topic, otherwise it's giving him WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I oppose Aquillion's silly cries of WP:UNDUE. I also think the term "social justice warrior" should have a bigger role in the article as most have posited. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you believe that more coverage of the term is due here- what sources do you believe discuss the term in length? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The many already provided but removed WP:BOLDly. A revert of a WP:BOLD edit isn't bold. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not WP:BOLD when it was extensively discussed (as it was above!) People invent all sorts of neologisms to demonize and insult each other; Wikipedia isn't really the place to document all of them in exhaustive depth. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He just kept repeating WP:UNDUE. That's not a discussion. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've gone into a lot more detail than that above. The problem is that these sources are mostly marginal or insignificant mentions (or, in the most recent case, are synthesis using multiple primary sources to draw a conclusion about the usage of the term that isn't in any of them.) It's an objection that should be easy to answer by finding higher-quality or more reputable sources, which nobody has been able to do. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Marginal according to whom? You? They are reputable. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, the sources used either don't discuss it in enough depth or aren't reputable enough to be the sole source necessary for it to be included in the article in the way you advocate. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Enough depth how? Not reputable enough how? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on reliable sources is here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, could you iterate how those sources are not "deep" enough or reputable enough? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I went into detail above! What part of it do you disagree with? Do you feel that Dixon E. Southworth is due weight comparable to the other figures I mentioned? Absent that, as I've said, we'd be performing original research if we used Southworth (or the other editorials removed more recently) to try and argue about the usage of the term -- what we'd need, instead, are sources (ideally academic ones) describing its usage, not ones that simply use it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't mention depth or reputability once. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that social justice warrior redirected here. Looking at news sources, The Washington Post has a detailed article here about the term. Since that article has a lot to say about the term per WP:NEO, I would support a stand-alone article. MOS:NEO also says, "Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources," and with the term becoming a dictionary entry, an article focusing on its background would be particularly informative to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible comment. The material fits poorly here and should be removed, but now that there are sources discussing the phrase it,s probably time to reconsider its own article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There's already a terrible article for that kind of stuff over at Keyboard man if we're going down the road of "Oh, there's a phrase on the internet". Last I noticed, that was the job of a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Like all these other pejoratives, there's more that can be said about the phrase "social justice warrior" than just dictionary information. At any rate it fits very poorly here and ought to be removed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to search for SJW and got redirected to this article(SJ), which I find does not mention the term in any useful fashion. Now you can have your redirect, or you can keep SJW out of this article, but you can't do both. I don't frankly give a fuck which you choose, but it is a choice that has to be made. Greglocock (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialectics

"In Internet culture, "social justice warrior" has been used as a pejorative neologism for perceived liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness online.[62][63][64] Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation.[65][66]"

This sentence is my only problem with this article. I can't see how "insinuating pretense" could mean anything other than presenting a point of view? The word "insinuate" being used to insinuate in and of itself simple antagonism? Which is then described as pretense, essentially saying "i know in my deepest heart what i believe is the truth and i know you are lying! (pretense) what's more you are lying a little too loudly for my comfort level (insinuation)". it's a fight that only ends in murder. 70.162.140.74 (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Individual paras or sections do not have to be NPOV. HTH. yeah i always kill people who misuse words. SOP in all English speaking countries. Get used to it. Greglocock (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I have moved redirect to Gamergate Controvery (its only direct relevance on the web where the neologism is discussed in context) and removed these two terrible sentences that effectively place rationalised criticism of social justice as a world movement, with what someone put on Urban Dictionary as if they have equivalence of weight. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of those restoring this content:

• None of the sources discuss Social Justice.
• None of the sources discuss criticism of Social Justice.
• None of the sources actually refer to anything other than the use of "SJW" as shorthand for criticism of feminism or liberalism.
• None of the sources actually refer to anything other than the idea that SJW is being used by one group to insult another for having critical thoughts about computer games - not Social Justice.
• The sources largely dismiss the ideas of the people on the internet as being disingenuous with their use of the insult.

To quote:

"Gamergate-supporters on 4chan and Twitter have been quick to sling around the acronym “SJW,” for social justice warrior — a kind of shorthand insult for liberals and progressives."[2]

"The term “social justice warrior” (surely a good thing) has been used pejoratively to describe those writers who choose to examine the social and political subtexts of contemporary video games."[3]

"A Social Justice Warrior, or SJW, is any person, female or male, who argues online for political correctness or feminism."[4]

"For certain segments of the gaming world, she writes, the term refers to “people who, according to Urbandictionary, engage in ‘social justice arguments on the internet… in an effort to raise their own personal reputation."[5]

"People who, according to Urban Dictionary, engage in “social justice arguments on the internet... in an effort to raise their own personal reputation.” In other words, SJWs don’t hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that’s not a real category of people."[6]

Inclusion of this material is POV push and an attempt to shoehorn Gamergate into a topic that has no relevance any more than its inclusion at feminism would. Koncorde (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde, if your problem is that the SJW content being included in the Criticism section creates undue weight, that's a fair concern, and it may be addressed by placing it in a different place. If you simply want the content completely removed no matter the reason, that's not acceptable. The content is well sourced and has survived plenty of discussions; edit-warring it out of the article is disruptive. Diego (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, you are re-inserting without discussion or any rationalisation something that several people above have already pointed out is dodgy as fuck. You are also not tackling the actual sources which are clearly not discussing Social Justice as a concept, but referring to what Gamergate calls people that they do not like. This is not an equivalence, and in fact has almost no relevance or is even a misnomer or intentional slur. Almost all of them are using a base reference of Gamergate - and finding a reference to SJW outside of Gamergate is literally one paper (which then didn't do what it was purported to do).

Survival of previous discussions is also not evidence that it should remain. It merely introduces why an AFD discussion that was 14-11-9 in Delete / Keep / Merge somehow came out as Merge at "Social Justice" which seems the least likely result. Clearly a discussion about the appropriateness of this content in a relevant topic was required because this article is not it. Koncorde (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and what a great edit shoehorning it into another section where it shares absolutely no context. Honestly if you can't find somewhere appropriate to place it without throwing it at the end of unrelated sections then you need to question whether it actually has a place, or whether you are arguing for its inclusion here only because you want it. Koncorde (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the section. Reviewing the article's edit history -- as well as this talk page -- it appears that many editors have objected to the material, and a single editor keeps restoring it. That indicates a lack of consensus for its inclusion. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Visiting Scholars at USF

Of potential interest to editors/watchers of this page, the University of San Francisco's Gleeson Library is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles about social justice reformers and reform movements.

This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see USF's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

See Also:

Per recent reverted edits please see the MOS for See Also inclusion MOS:SEEALSO and related topics to wit;

"See also" lists and "Related topics" lists are valuable navigational tools that assist users in finding related Wikipedia articles. When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article

This is not suitable for this article - nor is it required, and the discussions above largely outlines the reasons why it was seen not to have it included as a topic within the article, so should not be linked. This continues pattern of attempting to shoehorn references to a slur because it happens to be using the same language. That's like going through every computer game or IT related article and linking to nerd, or other pejoratives. It is not required, and offers no value as a navigational tool. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is the best explanation I have seen about these recurring interventions. I was not sure about my position on the issue, but I don't have doubts now. Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I was one of the reverts. Primarily because I had just seen you remove the link to this page from Social Justice Warrior, saying in the edit summary that it has "no relevance to the subject other than in name". That struck me as WP:POINTy. Here, I don't think it's appropriate for the one who removes mention of a subject to then engage in an edit war to remove a link from see also on the basis of it no longer being mentioned in the article (I presume that's what I should take away from your bolding of that text above). But in truth, I don't have such a strong opinion about this instance and don't intend to revert again.

An analogy to adding feminazi to feminism is, I think, more appropriate and more persuasive than nerd/IT. Nerd is an extremely shallow insult, and does not, like SJW and feminazi, take specific issue with certain perceived (imagined and/or stereotyped) beliefs and activities, which people using the term differ with ideologically. I mean, sure, you could make fun of the way a nerd looks or talks or something, but it's not a cultural/ideological issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My point was more that Nerd describes someone that enjoys games, in the same way a social justice warrior may be accused of enjoying social justice - which appears to be the only reason to link otherwise unrelated topics. To take your example - Feminism may have a section to do with its criticism, and part of that may talk about Feminazi as a slur - so a "see also" might be passably related (although the in-line link is probably sufficient). In contract Feminazi cannot be discussed without Feminism, so almost certainly a "see also" would be the right inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if the computer game had "nerd" in its title! The "social justice" in "social justice warrior" is not an independent coinage; it is the same phrase with the same origins, even if SJW doesn't refer to precisely the same thing. Therefore it's certainly lexically relevant and users might well expect to find links between the two. Equinox (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Show me where someone can actually identify the dependent coinage? Lets be clear - this article is wholly (rightly or wrongly) talking about the theory of social justice. There is almost no reference to it as a movement (even the section on "Movements" is dominated by the Progressivism link box, which itself then links to numerous fields of theory, and discussions of global rights - none of which are tackled or dealt with). The etymology of the word is fine I suppose, though I have seen no evidence as to what about social justice the users of social justice warrior as an insult are referring to, but that isn't an argument for its inclusion. Koncorde (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've started a deletion discussion for the page people are discussing linking here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I added Social Justice Warrior to the "See also" section because it didn't belong in the "Criticism" section, where another editor had put it. I don't feel strongly about including or excluding it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This analogy might work better. There is a parody of religion named Flying Spaghetti Monster and while it does appear in the spaghetti's disambiguation page, it does not in the spaghetti's main article. The concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster plays a similar (though not equal) role to the Social Justice Warrior, and thus, I see no need to include it in this one. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Err, the point of choosing spaghetti is that it's arbitrary (more or less). It could be anything as long as it sounds silly. Social justice warrior is based on perceptions that, however biased/skewed they may be, are nonetheless perceptions of activism or activists connected to social justice. I still like feminazi/feminism as an analogy -- a negative caricature to mock rather than an accurate depiction of a large group. But I suppose FSM [not] being added to Theism or somesuch would make sense as an analogy.

Here's the thing, though: for feminism, religion, and many other broad sociopolitical topics we have articles like criticism of religion or antifeminism which the Flying Spaghetti Monster or "feminazi" could be merged to if they didn't merit a stand-alone article. A page like that doesn't exist for this topic, though. At least not that I've been able to identify. The only reason I !voted keep on the first SJW AfD was because I think there is a topic along the lines of "criticism of social justice [activism]", "criticism of left-wing political activism", "negative depiction of activists", something about online political expression, or maybe just "antiactivism" (the least problematic of the bunch, I think). As with any "criticism of..." article or article about a group of connected but varied beliefs, there's huge WP:COATRACK potential, but I can't help but think there's a viable topic in there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your train of thought, and there are criticisms of those broader subjects often published by notable universities which would lend credibility, and into which "social justice warrior" may find a home amongst a list of pejorative used by critics. But its current guise is a mess, and shoe-horning a merge (which was a bloody strange decision), doesn't actually tackle the need of critical assessment of progressive politics. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly it should be under see also. The only reason it's not in the article elsewhere is because people are POV pushing it out -- from section, to criticism, to see also, to completely gone. Victory! We hate the term so much that they we are going to fight this hard to purge it from the see also section? Is it that big of a deal? Come on. This would be like black people going crazy over the Nigger article. It's an encyclopedic term. And so is this. That doesn't mean it's a good term. Put down your swords. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you put down your sword? Read the reasons for its non-inclusion. SJW has nothing to do with this Social Justice article because there is no context for its inclusion because it has no context in use (or content) for discussion or presentation when you actually refer to the sources. All that can currently be presented are attempts to give the phrase a definition, or typical pejorative use of the phrase based on that definition. In which case they go into the relevant persons article, or into the wider article spawning the phrase. An equivalence is something such as Derp which is all well and fine in usage, and there would be no obstruction to the creation of a wiktionary entry. For the same reasons an article doesn't exist called "Benghazi" to do with the catcall use, but an article about Benghazi exists discussing the controversy and then it becomes an editorial decision whether to include the phrase as part of a wider commentary relating to criticism. Koncorde (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

−

I suppose that analogies are like ice cream flavors, or perhaps like more ingrained predispositions. What works for one, may not work for another. I added the spaghetti's, in part, to buttress the point already made. I like Koncorde's suggestion of a "list of pejorative used by critics" in which a wikilink to Social Justice Warrior may fit. And regarding the previous comment, rather than accusing, please, bring persuasive arguments (WP:NPA). If you carefully read the exchange here, you will see that there is a genuine interest to make this article as encyclopedic as possible, one that is fair. If I see Koncorde's point correctly, the argument is that rather than informing, the wikilink would confound. There is nothing in this article that would directly contradict or correct the confusion that the association would create. So, it is not simply of no use, but it is unhelpful. The list, as suggested above, may work better. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Koncorde is right. MOS:SEEALSO advises against a link like this, which isn't actually related to the concept, it's just a facetious reference to the name. Take it out and keep it out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

This article is written with an obvious liberal bias. I don't see any dissenting opinions. A political article on this website should be fair and balanced. JT (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This is philosophy, not politics. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice is currently used as a glittering generality for many liberal viewpoints, and the concern I'd have with the article is that it doesn't do a very good job of identifying what social justice is - there are some useful definitions scattered through the article. It's a murky topic, and the article isn't much help in clearing up the confusion. It might be helpful to organize the article somewhat, potentially in historical order or some other nonjudgmental format, as it's kind of a mess. I'm also a bit concerned that the article doesn't cover the Coughlin publication, Social Justice, which most current advocates of social justice would not support. 166.176.187.138 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding 'alleged' and 'perceived' to everything

Hi VictorD7. You believe that the notion of there being 'unspoken barriers' to something is controversial. Because you believe this, you have 'perceived' to it, which seems to be a violation of WP:WEASEL. If you believe the current content is sourced to opinion and not fact, the correct procedure is to attribute it. If you believe it is sourced to fact, but this fact is contentious (as displayed by providing other factual pieces that disagree), you can feel free to add perceived or contentious or what have you if you can provide those sources which disagree. Can you provide sources which disagree? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, PeterTheFourth. I added "perceived" to avoid WP:SOAPBOX and bring the segment into compliance with WP:NPOV policy, as Wikipedia editors are prohibited from taking sides or treating controversial opinions as established facts in Wikipedia's voice. Having examined the five sources following the text in response to your section here, it's unclear the "unspoken barriers" segment has any source support at all. First, searches show the phrase "unspoken barriers" doesn't appear in any of the five sources. The first four sources in particular all deal with globalism. I admittedly skimmed fast, but I noticed no mention of the subject material in the pages listed in the first source. The second source is an opinionated, relatively pro globalization and pro free market lecture that does tie “social justice” to economic “inequality” and “globalization” that brings freer markets (the absence of large scale redistributive government intervention isn’t exactly a “barrier”, so your preferred wording is misleading), but in the context of examining various competing opinions, including the school of thought that says such “inequality”-based attacks on globalization and/or free markets is rooted in “envy” rather than true justice, and concludes that expanding private property rights and free market principles is the best course of future action for the poor regions of the world, even paraphrasing Hayek’s comment that only markets and competition-and economic freedom-have consistently sustained high incomes for the vast majority of any population. I only read the first couple of pages of the third source, which says it revisits a “debate” on globalization by introducing “two clashing views”, and didn't seem like it was poised to prove the existence of "unspoken barriers" to social mobility, let alone establish that there's expert consensus on precisely what these barriers would be (especially since the whole thing acknowledges a debate). In the absence of consensus about what the alleged "unspoken barriers" are, the qualifier "perceived" is appropriate. The fourth source was an avant-garde opinion piece by a guy seeking to coin various new terms dealing with globalization. I skimmed the first part but it didn't seem promising either. The fifth source was even more avant-garde, and was written by two female political/cultural activists. It's an intro to a collection of essays various people wrote. The intro explicitly calls for activism for various types of vaguely described "change", and reads as if it was written when one or both authors were quite intoxicated. Among other gems it describes the notion of linear time as “patriarchal”, and characterizes itself as an alternative, anti-establishment effort, not a representation of established expert consensus on anything. Of course RS on Wikipedia should be the latter, not fresh avant-garde pieces, unless the authors of the opinions or arguments are being explicitly identified in text, and their views aren't treated as fact in Wikipedia's voice.

If anything, the already existing sources reinforce the importance of treating anything mentioned in the segment as opinion, and therefore the use of "perceived" in that context. A dicier question is whether there's support in the sources for use of "unspoken barriers". If there's some firm support for that phrase in the sources that I missed or that's in a portion I didn't read, much less that would establish specific "unspoken barriers" as undisputed fact rather than opinion, then feel free to quote it here. VictorD7 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Student Evaluation: References and Missing Information

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

During the History section of the Social Justice page (under Aristotle) there is no source given after a quotation, but there is one at the end of the paragraph (though the source only links to another Wikipedia article. During the Religious Perspectives section of the Social Justice page (under Judaism) the entire section lacks a citation, but has been appropriately labeled as needing citations.

• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

Under the Social Justice Movements section of the Social Justice page, the editor only lists three 'Social Justice Movements'. However, there are many more prominent (and popular) movements that I feel could be included (i.e. Black Lives Matter, Women's Rights, etc.)

BDarsow (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Replace this Page

I am trying to be objective and polite here. I can tell that someone has worked hard on this page. Unfortunately, I think they have failed, and that there is very little here that can be salvaged. This page needs to be scrapped, and someone else needs to write a new, more focused and more clearly written and a much more useful page.

The definition is vague and circular. I don't think the person who wrote this page knows what Social Justice is. The content really has no focus. This entry simply doesn't address any issues that a typical reader might have that concerns Social Justice. If you really want to discuss academic philosophy, build a new entry and link to it from here. You haven't provided enough information on John Rawles, Thomas Pogge or any of the other academics you mention here, to be useful to the average wikipedia reader.

Where is the discussion of Abolitionists in US history? Where is Theodore Parker (look him up on Wikipedia)? Where is the rise of American Progressivism and the Social Justice movement between 1885 and 1930? Where are Walter Rauschenbusch and Harry Emerson Fosdick? Dorthy Day? Martin Luther King? Where is the parable of the Good Samaritan and the overturning of the moneychangers' tables? While Christianity isn't the only driver for this concept and the United States isn't the only country affected; they are still very important.

The concept of Social Justice has always been the core of American political progressivism; yet you don't mention immigration, the rise of unions, populism, progressives like Bob LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, Wm. Norris, Lyndon Johnson, or all the Roosevelts. Biff alcatraz (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biff alcatraz. We do not "replace" existing articles about notable topics. Instead, we expand them, we improve them, we reference them, and we collaborate to make them better. So, you have given yourself an assignment. Improve this article, but do not mess with it in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Biff just misunderstood how things work. He appears new here (newer than even me!), so maybe he just didn't know what to do. But yes, we don't "replace" articles. If you think something is missing or lacking, bring it up here, or be bold and add it in yourself. In either situation, discussion will probably occur and we can collaborate to improve the article together. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it looks as if the definition of "social justice" is being whitewashed by some editors. There's no reference to its history, how it was employed to aid Communist and Socialist regimes to rise into power. No information about the Marxists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, anarchists and malcontents known as the New Left now waging a Gramscian quiet revolution for the overthrow of the US Constitution. Today so-called liberals, progressives and Democrats employ fascist ideas like “identity politics” - a strategy of Mussolini. (How Marxism Dominates the Left, Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com, June 1, 2005) Social Justice has been cultivated and disseminated throughout the West by the Frankfurt School's academic critique of the foundations of Western civilization, using false claims and manufactured stats to justify its advance. It's a an attack on Constitutional Justice and the Bill of Rights, subverting basic legal protections like due-process, habeus corpus, jury by peers etc. Social justice is a witch-hunt, a lynch-mob, a cancer to free societies, as has been evidenced repeatedly throughout history. I don't know what's going on at Wikipedia, but to read this you'd think it was just 'really cool stuff'. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This place needs a complete replacement or revamp. --CheeseMasterX (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

EDL 516: Student Evaluation

•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?

https://books.google.com/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false.

This link leads to a Google EBook titled Social Problems and Social Legislation, that is written by a couple authors and their students. There are no creditable sources attached to their findings. I do not find this resource reliable.

•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

https://www.thenation.com/article/resource-privilege/

This a link that is referenced on the wiki page. The Nation is known to be a progressive and liberal source. There has been a large feud between liberals and conservatives and is (what I believe) one of the many facets that plays a role in Social Justice (in The United States). I believe that this is not a neutral publication because of the fact that it is known to lean one way.

Oborn1zs (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A source may be used under some circumstances if it is clearly identified as to the positions it takes. But the self-published ebook is not appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Social justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824050226/http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host to http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016083225/http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/thoughtsuponslavery.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/wesley/thoughtsuponslavery.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206020517/http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066539&ct=6467671&notoc=1 to http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066539&ct=6467671&notoc=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206012803/http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066539&ct=6467635&notoc=1 to http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5066539&ct=6467635&notoc=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216183419/http://www.osjspm.org/cst/themes.htm to http://www.osjspm.org/cst/themes.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130904165644/http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2007nov/shaffer.html to http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2007nov/shaffer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism in "criticism" section

The text of the criticism section seems to be largely copied verbatim from here: https://books.google.de/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is cited as a source, but the whole section would need to be put in quotes if it's copied verbatim, and there doesn't seem to be good reason to quote such a large section of text from another work verbatim.

Of course the individual quotes from the people cited can be included, but the narrative text should be completely re-written. -2003:CA:83C9:1B00:21D3:A9CD:B867:4196 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no plagiarism or copyright violation. The "source" you cite at Google Books is a copy of an old version of this article. Note the way it includes the footnotes in square brackets. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Varied continents/countries perspective on Social justice

With all the perspective awarded to philoosophers and religions, there should be views from either various continents or countries for wider context of a better understanding of Social Justice as it affects other earthly geographical areas. IamBlueman (talk) IamBlueman —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Janusz Korwin-Mikke Quote

I want to move to take this quote out of the criticism section... I understand that this guy is a respected writer but the argument doesn't seem simple in a concise way, it seems simple as in nonsense. Plugging in another phrase... "Either 'organic solvent' has the same meaning as 'solvent' – or not. If so – why use the additional word 'organic?' We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if 'organic solvent' means something different from 'solvent' – then 'something different from solvent' is by definition 'insolvent.'" ...no? Sabriel~enwiki (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A less inept analogy would be, "We divide all compounds between solvents and non-solvents. They divide all compounds between organic solvents and non-organic solvents." The categories are completely messed up. Since you used a qualifier that is a subcategory of solvents. The previous analogy is broken and wrong. Social Justice is not a subcategory of Justice, one Part Social and another Non-Social Justice. Just really bad attempt at analogy.

Justice as define by legal traditions and ethical theories is a complementary set with unjustice. All human relations are either just or unjust. What Jorwin-Mikke is stressing is how Social Justice is contradicting all these traditions and ethics, because of specific incompatible values. This deletion removes from the article a valid and insightful crticism of Social Justice, and decreases the quality and NPOV of the article. 177.157.251.62 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

177.157.251.62 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Korwin-Mikke doesn't seem to be at all rejecting the notion of social justice per se as much as he is rejecting the notion of it being a separate, privileged entity from justice: He's saying that either it is justice, in which case social justice is a Tautology and the label 'social' is both redundant and wasteful, or it is not justice at all. Werhdnt (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What you just said is not communicated by the quote itself, which had no accompanying explanatory text. I waited a few days, no one responded, so I took it out. Add it back in if you all like but it's not contributing anything in terms of understanding by itself. I stand by my "inept" analogy - organic is a modifier of solvent, social is a modifier of justice that refers to a specific set of ideas and principles that are not necessarily implied by the term "justice". Social justice's primary use case isn't within legal traditions and ethics studies academia, it is colloquial. The debate you are having does not translate. Sabriel~enwiki (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I note Sabriel has removed the quote, citing this discussion. There doesn't appear to be any consensus here that it was inappropriate or 'silly' as the edit summary described it. I second Werhdnt's interpretation of Korwin Mikke's critique and I'd like to see the quote restored to the article, unless someone can present a more robust argument for keeping it out. 1RM (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I reached the conclusion I did on what Korwin-Mikke means by clicking the link to his biography and reading about him, which is generally a good idea. Sabriel's analogy falls apart because of a failure to do it--it isn't 'organic solvent' but 'round circle' that ought to be used to preserve the original intent. Werhdnt (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Took care of the reversion; before the quote gets removed again it is preferable we have some consensus that it should be removed--and while I'm not sure, my gut says that a solo editor deeming something 'silly' when other editors feel it it not is not the preferred process. Werhdnt (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, expecting that readers of one wikipedia entry read through all the linked entries in order to understand the meaning of the original entry is not a good idea. You reversed my edit, which was made in good faith, without acknowledging or responding to my recent point. Not that anyone actually engaged my first point either, which was that the quote doesn't make sense to a layperson; instead the preferred process seems to be snidely nitpicking the technical correctness of an analogy that was only intended to demonstrate how the quote in question reads to someone not familiar with the academic debate it is pulled from. How is consensus supposed to be reached, if the preferred process is one of disingenuous non-engagement? This sort of contemptuous gatekeeping is exactly what's meant when wikipedia is compared to a corporate bureaucracy. Or do you have a problem with that analogy too? Sabriel~enwiki (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually very much a layperson on social justice, which is exactly why I chose to look up who this Korwin-Mikke person is when I read the quote originally and see as much as the sources allowed me to of the context it comes from. As for how consensus is reached, I believe we're expected to do so by the dictionary definition, of reaching a general agreement. I reverted your edit precisely because I don't see that a general agreement was reached that the quote is silly; there seems to be general agreement that its inclusion is certainly not an the best writing you'll find on Wikipedia, but I feel we can apply that complaint to the entire criticism section of this article given that it conflates criticism of the concept and criticism of those advocating for it. It's not the same: I can be fine with the idea of everybody having housing while still being of the opinion that the homeless man down on the street corner cannot just move into my living room...and not pay his share of rent. Werhdnt (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Korwin-Mikke is a Polish writer and politician, a conservative libertarian (?). The quote comes from his Blog, December 2006, [7]. The text is about dead miners. He loves to make poeple angry, to be politically incorrect. Xx236 (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Marxism

It seems strange there is no mention of Marxism, except under "Liberation Theology".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? The concept is not inherently Marxist, nor do advocates of social justice justify their assertions by appeal to Marxian theory. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it's not inherently Marxist. But this article discusses an array of philosophical and religious positions, so it is strange that Marxism isn't one of them. And, perversely, the article discusses the relationship between Liberation Theology and Marxism, but not Marxism itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If there aren't many or any reliable sources making the connection, we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the UN document "Social Justice in an Open World" (which is cited here) mentions Marxism and communism several times.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What about Communist ideas of the social justice?Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

See my question about Marxism above.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The page is biased.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

College students live in tents suggests that the creators are rich spoiled people.

The European Union controls African economy and accepts some survivors of the exploitation systems as immigrants. Is it 'social justice'?Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

? I don't know, do you have any significant articles / reliable sources discussing "creators" or exploitation of African migrants that discuss "Social Justice"? Koncorde (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of texts about social justice inside the EU, just ask Google, much less about the impact of the EU in Africa. The EU exploits Africa economically [8] and at the same time it helps Africa (?) and accepts African emmigrants. Is it a problem of "social justice"? Xx236 (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This thread is really getting weird.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, afraid I can't help with when links provided are to articles that don't mention Social Justice. The "just ask Google" isn't much of a start, particularly when the user says "much less about...Africa". So how should we report on something that isn't reported on in conjunction with Social Justice?? Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Völkisch equality

Völkisch equality was a Nazi form of social justice for Aryans/Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Which means it isn't "social justice" at all if it's for a master race. There really is no point in you just throwing things at this page without corroborating evidence / sources. Koncorde (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

But at least Europe now accepts Africans.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Marxism and social justice - the pov issue

My request for sources wasn't answered I think, but here: Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice Princeton University Press.[9] Or a Brill publication published this year, Marx and Social Justice: Ethics and Natural Law in the Critique of Political Economy. There's no reason at all not to include Marxism. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can track who said not to include Marxism, or why, but using POV tags for something someone didn't bring any sources for was not the right way to raise this issue. Can you summarise for inclusion Doug? Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. There was no reason to add a tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Grassroots

@RohenTahir: Please read the sources provided dealing with the challenges of globalisation, please read the wikipedia article on Grassroots for more context and sourcing. Unless you can source that the drive for 'social justice' is not from the ground up, then you cannot overturn the wording by removing it or referencing things in your edit summaries that are not even mentioned. That the Democratic Party may reflect 'social justice', that members may identify as Democrats, or that support social justice is irrelevant to the statement. They are also a singular example, not necessarily a global one, which is driven by multiple socio-economic factors. Even if the Democrats were in fact an example of not being 'grassroot', the notion of a political party driving 'social justice' is not the nature of discussion within this article, which is specifically not about "political" forces (although the outcomes may themselves be political it is not necessarily a requirement). Koncorde (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Only two of the sources (numbers 7 and 8, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5cQDUWg9Kd8MTk1Qkp2b0ZaNDg/view and https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5cQDUWg9Kd8bERZaWVUVGRPLTA/view respectively) even mention grassroots. The sourced statement should be supported entirelly by all of the sources. Either 4, 5 and 6 are removed or the word grassroots is removed.--RohenTahir (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not remotely how citing sources works. The other pieces are all talking about the same subject matter from the same pov. They do not need to mention the exact word (Wikipedia is supposed to reflect, but need not use exact language). There is also no evidence that you have presented in any sources to suggest that the there is a current global non-grassroot case being made. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

For evidence of a global non-grassroot cause being made, check the sources on all the pages for the Green Party(s), too lazy to copy and paste them all. It is a global initiative that, while decentralized, uses top-down decision making in each green party in each country.

Global: √ Movement: √ Goals are what the article says: √ Grassroot: X RohenTahir (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for that opinion. Also your claim is the same as the statement I make in my first outline. That the Green party may reflect social justice ideals doesn't make them an example of global movements with a top down approach. I doubt very much you would even find a single source to indicate the Green parties have any such "top down" structure, and would be surprised if you found a "global" link between the parties. Koncorde (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)