Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Non-notable, original research -- request deletion

Topic seems non-notable, and even though the current draft is vastly improved with citations, they still amount to original research. The citations are not about the term itself, but simply collations of uses of the term. Unless several objective citations can be found which actually discuss the term, as opposed to simply using it, I suggest the article be deleted, and I've marked it as such. Zegota (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

topic is notable if there are articles about it in mainstream newspapers etc. It is basically an insult and we even have an article for the word birth so this is no less notable than thatShannonfraser (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Up for deletion but constructive edits only

This page does not appear to be notable enough to keep, if it is then more citations and information will need to be added. The layout may need to be changed. There's no need to start an edit war by deleting the contents and citations on the page wholesale on your own without explanation. 97.114.113.56 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The article, as-is, is poorly sourced and unsourced. There might be an article about this possible to write, but what's here is not a reasonable start to it. We need better sources than a blogger and a Forbes.com contributor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if you think this is a candidate for WP:SPEEDY you shouldn't take matters into your own hands, others have been improving this page (marginally). I considered additional citations and a reformat of the language of the page, but I suspect you would revert them. 97.114.113.56 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can write something that is coherent, neutral and well-sourced, nobody's going to revert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The as-is version that you mentioned didn't have any sources because you deleted all of the sources. Slow it down and lets talk this out, I expect that there is a lot of work to be done, lets all just take a deep breath. Juno (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic is very important and refers to a type of person who uses social justice themes in excess to the point of detriment. The article can be improved with some additional sources but need not be deletedShannonfraser (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

This article does not appear notable, perhaps as a section of the gamergate controversy article, merge or speedy delete? I don't think NorthBySouthBaranof can wait until deletion or attempt to improve the sources of the page. I share the frustration but not the intent to vandalize. 97.114.113.56 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Matter of opinion that it is not notable, so long as it appears in reliable sources it is notableShannonfraser (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of dispute templates

• a) The "Cyberbullying" category is not supported by any of the available sources.
• b) The description of Andrew Sullivan as believing that "SJWs" believe that media should be censored to impact the ongoing cultural discourse and strongly advocate for the theory of white privilege is not supported by the given source.
• c) KnowYourMeme is, by definition, not a reliable source — it is a source of entirely user-generated content and thus categorically fails to be acceptable here.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these issues, Cobbsaladin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate mention or no gamergate mention

At some point the article mentioned gamergate and a editor removed this on the logic that its probably more controversial than helpful. On the one hand, I figure that gamergate is probably where the term first picked up general media usage, on the other, I am sympathetic to the desire to tone these articles down until after the controversy dies down. What does everyone here think? Juno (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The same issue here as with the article as a whole, no one is talking about the subject of the article, a pejorative phrase, in the context of gamergate or any other issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. You were saying? Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You really think that "Honey Badger Brigade" is a good source? --5.81.52.82 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

precisely. and none of the reliable sources are talking about the term, merely giving a definition. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How can an editor can have so many edits and not understand WP:RS --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject and the bigger picture

I must have rewritten the lead fifteen times without saving, all the while asking myself the following question that I will now ask all of you: what is it that we're trying to describe and explain with this article? Is it just a recent term or is it the most recent term for another, larger subject? If the latter, what is the larger subject? To me, it seems to fit within a group of negative characterizations of social justice activists that includes various accusations of self-righteousness/sanctimony; various forms of "othering" due to going against the status quo; names like cry baby, feminazi, and goody-goody; as well as things like "thought policing" and political correctness. So what is the bigger subject? Anti-progressivism is too broad and in many ways inaccurate, "anti social justice activism" is clunky, as is "opposition to social justice activism". Thoughts? (I want to be very clear that I'm not advocating any particular position, making an argument for deletion, or supporting either side of GamerGate, and in fact it would be really helpful if GamerGate didn't enter into this thread) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Opposition to social justice activism is probably the best way to describe this. Then again the term SJW gets applied to anybody left of center in terms of their politics. Why can't we just focus on the notable academic subjects? We have one for social justice. This article should be salted --109.148.127.93 (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• To my mind, and in with the Forces piece, its the notion that these issues are window dressing for more. Either for a deeper political agenda, or as Rhododendrites put it "self-righteousness/sanctimony", as the end goal. Think liberalism/social justice:SJW::feminism:feminazi. Those who are grumbling about Suey Park are not grumbling about Thomas Aquinas. Juno (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed and Rhododendrites raises excellent questions. The lead as is doesn't make sense to me: a term for those who campaign against racism, sexism, etc. isn't objectively pejorative. Rather than extreme left I'd describe it as authoritarian left and largely internet-centric; so we're unlikely to find notable academic sources on issues that don't overlap with modern feminism (which is well studied.) Cobbsaladin (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

part of the issue is the lack of reliable sources talking about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of the advantages of the Forbes quote, we don't necessarily state what they are definitively, but we do provide a good picture from a reliable source. Juno (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll go back to the Forbes quote for the first sentence. It seems to do a great job encompassing the points that we discussed above. Juno (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Erik Kain's writings are a reliable source only for his own opinions; he is a WP:NEWSBLOGger and is not edited or otherwise fact-checked. We can use such a source to say that Erik Kain believes that's what an SJW is; we cannot use such a source to say "this is what an SJW is." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats why it woiuld be in quotation marks. Juno (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, in the body of the article, absolutely we can include Erik Kain's opinion. But we're not going to privilege his opinion above all others by making it the article's lead paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that the lead is quite flawed but I can't find anything more definitive. Does anyone have anything else out there from an RS that we could use? Juno (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that the lead is flawed; I think for an opening sentence it does a fine job describing the consensus of reliable sources: that the term is used to describe social justice activists, mostly by their opponents, and is almost always applied pejoratively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

4 out of 4 of the editors who have commented all think the lead is flawed.

The lead currently says that SJWs are people who like social justice. This is overly broad. While pretty much everyone would call [redacted blp] and SJW I don't think that anyone has ever applied the term to Thomas Aquinas. Not everyone who likes SJ is a SJW, and the opener needs to reflect this.

I'm fine to go with a source/quote other than Forbes (its just the best from an RS that I've seen so far) and I'm fine to put all sorts of modifiers around Kain's credentials but we need something that narrows down who SJWs are. Juno (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Watch your BLP violations and making assumptions about what "everyone" will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I can find literally no one who discusses the topic who does not think that [blp redacted] fits the mold and I can find literally no one who has ever called Thomas Aquinas a SJW. Juno (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

that your searching skills are limited does not excuse BLP violations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm not violating BLP and I remain confident that literally no one has said that Thomas Aquinas is an SJW. Juno (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

you would be quite literally, wrong. [6] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not an RS for anything besides his own opinion, and Erik Kain doesn't write for Forbes. He's a Forbes.com contributor, which is not at all the same thing. By the way, no, you're wrong about what "pretty much everyone" would do. The vast majority of people don't even use that phrase or that terminology. Its use is restricted to a subset of people who pejoratively apply it to another group of people they oppose.

There is no universally-agreed-upon definition of SJW, Juno — people who pejoratively describe other people don't get to define those other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Forbes version of the lead seems superior to me 1) because it relies on better ref and 2) because it actually explains why the term "Social Justice Warrior" is pejorative. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A Forbes.com contributor blogger is not a better ref, and the description is, at best, contentious.

It is instructive to note that Kain himself admits that the description is unsettled and contentious, with his statement that it is also viewed as meaning ...What you’re called whenever you talk about social justice issues when writing about games, even if you don’t mean to push an agenda or personally benefit. That is, Kain is acknowledging that those to whom the term is applied wildly disagree about its meaning. We can't privilege one of those meanings over the other. We should certainly explain in the text of the article what Kain thinks the people who use "SJW" mean by it, but adopting that viewpoint as our own is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, to me, it seems to go without saying that a term used as a pejorative would be contentious. I think it also goes without saying that such terms will be applied to people who do not at all fit the pejorative meaning, and also that people who are described pejoratively will tend to disagree with negative description applied to them (that seems to be the case with all pejoratives). I think the text you mention of it being applied in cases where target didn't mean to push an agenda also seems relevant and belongs in the article. But still, the Forbes quote version of the lead seems superior because it communicates to the reader why this phrase is pejorative and gives some insight into how the phrase is used as a pejorative, which seems to be useful and vital information for the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We can communicate why the phrase is pejorative without appearing to adopt the meaning ourselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can, and the version you reverted seemed to do so nicely by using a direct quote and attributing it to it's source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't, because it privileged one person's opinion above all others in the article's lead, without any particular evidence that his opinion reflects the consensus of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A: It didn't "privilege" a person's opinion, it quoted an author, in context, who is paid to white about these issues for an RS.

B: Its better than an opening sentence that is wrong, and that there is consensus to change. It doesn't have to be the Forbes source, but the lead can't go one saying "SJWs are people who like SJ", that is deliberately false. Juno (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is a video game journalist an RS to talk about content relating to social justice? Have a look at the sort of articles that Erik Kain writes. You do realise this is an academic field of its own right --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbullying

Hey guys, we've gone back and forth over the cyberbullying category a few times in the edits summaries. I'd like to talk over the reasoning here.

I've seen SJWs and Cyberbullying mentioned together enough that I think it merits the category. Juno (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What you have "seen" is not relevant; what is verifiable in reliable sources is. As per WP:CATEGORIES, Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. None of the sources cited here make any such link. Moreover, per WP:CATDEF, A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Unless a clear consensus of reliable sources consistently link this subject with "cyberbullying," the category is inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for you to take such an uncollegial, demeaning tone. Stay CIVIL. I'll go dig up all the sources. Juno (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there I haven't seen enough in the sources yet to justify adding this category except insofar as any insult hurled online would be considered cyberbullying (which I don't think is entirely accurate). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Forbes source

Not sure if this breaks WP:OR but how can the term be simultaneously about individuals who "social justice issues like sexism, homophobia, etc. to push a political agenda and personally benefit" but also anybody who "talk(s) about social justice issues". Those are two different definitions and the latter clearly encompasses the first --5.81.52.82 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(that's the problem when you attempt to use a non linguist's blog "definition" as the primary reference for your "definition")-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how the article can be in any way informative if it contradicts itself in the first paragraph --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually say both of those things simultaneously. Juno (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure it does. Kain specifically says So what is a Social Justice Warrior? There are two definitions. First, the definition as it’s applied by those who use it and second the definition as it’s received by those who it’s used against. You wanted to use Kain really, really badly — you can't now cherry-pick just one of his two definitions for the lede merely because you prefer it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Kain notable enough to dictate the lede of the article and therefore main definition of the subject

I'm curious why Kain's opinion on this subject should be the one that dictates how the entire topic is defined. The article states:

"Erik Kain, a contributor to Forbes.com says the term is used by opponents to allege the use of "social justice issues like sexism, homophobia, etc. to push a political agenda and personally benefit" but those who are targeted view the accusation being applied to anyone who "talk(s) about social justice issues" whether or not they are pushing an agenda or stand to benefit."

However is doesn't exactly say who Erik Kain is or why we should care what he defines the subject as. It seems that he mostly writes gaming articles. Why is he defining of an article within the field of social justice which is an academic field with many experts. Furthermore, it is written in Wikipedia's voice that "those who are targeted view the accusation being applied to anyone who" talks about said issues. Then it cuts back into Kains voice in the quotation. It should either be direct quotations or statements that can be backed up by sources. We can't just say that "those who are targeted" view it as such without other quotations that state as such. Either way I don't think it's a particularly strong definition for the lede section of the article --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is his bio at forbes [7]:

"I write about video games: the industry and the culture."

He is almost certainly an WP:UNDUE source for the lede section of an article relating to an academic field --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's inappropriate to use Kain, who is not a notable expert in this field, to define the term. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Kain is far from an expert in the area and should not be defaulted to as the primary definer of the term, we need some type of expert such as a linguist. Oh , yeah. None of those have bothered to note the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone have an academic source that defines the term? Kain is a paid author in the field writing in a RS. He isn't the best (and I don't especially like his definition) but he seems to be the best that we have now. Juno (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If we had that, the AfD would be Speedy Keep. The fact is, Kain, the non linguist blogger for a finance mag is the strongest "source" put forward. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You should have a look at some more serious articles and look at who it is who defines the topic in the first sentence or so of the article, preferably one in the sociology portal because that is the area which this article is related to. I am fairly sure they will not be based on the opinions of video game journalists. If you take feminism and social justice as examples, you will find they are based on dictionary definitions. Sources are crucial for this sort of a topic and Kain is WP:UNDUE as a voice to define it --5.81.52.82 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would love to have more articles. Do you have any good ones? Juno (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Those two weren't good examples? Sociology, aesthetics, capitalism etc. All use dictionary definitions --5.81.52.82 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I was vague, I meant "do you have any good dictionary definitions?" I would be totally cool to move to a dictionary. Juno (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Eric Kain piece is not an acceptable source. It's from Forbes' blog section, which allows pretty much anyone to publish their own material without any serious editorial oversight.[8] Unless he has some expertise in linguistics or something like that, the article shouldn't be cited. It's not a good sign that this is being treated as one of the most substantial sources for this topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that we could do with more sources, in fairness, the guy is a professional writer and this is his focus area. Juno (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Linguistics is most emphatically NOT his focus area. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Self-published sources like this are acceptable if they're an "established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Kain appears to write about video games, not linguistics or lexicography or anything else that would make him an "established expert" on defining words and terms.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kain is no longer the focal point of the lead. I agree a single person's definition, unless it's simply the best articulated version of what most people are saying, is not appropriate to start off with. That said, I see nothing wrong with using it as a source with the rest. This is an article just as much about culture, politics, activism, etc. as it is linguistics. Ensure you cite linguistics experts for phoneme and morpheme, but linguists aren't actually authorities on what reliable sources say about a term, nor do they constitute the only reliable sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Various other published sources would be reliable for this topic, but again, this is effectively a self-published source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSBLOG. It's published by Forbes, although it might not be subject to their typical fact-checking procedures and is indeed an opinion piece. So we wouldn't say "according to Forbes" we would say "according to Erik Kain", but as a general rule (though context does matter, of course) news blogs and opinion pieces in reliable publications are fair game to use as a source so long as you're not giving it undue weight and as long as you're citing/crediting/handling it appropriately. As I said above, I agree it would be inappropriate to rely on his quote as a definition, but the lead no longer does that and I think the Kain piece, because of where it's published, is entirely fit to include as one among many footnotes. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't even at the level of a WP:NEWSBLOG, which implies some kind of connection and oversight by the publication. As I said, the Forbes.com blog section is effectively just an avenue for pretty much anyone to post pretty much whatever they want, with little if any oversight.[9] Appearing on Forbes.com doesn't offer much more noteworthiness than appearing on Wordpress.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should take it to WP:RSN. It would be useful to have more opinions on to talk about Forbes blogs in the future. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up - I looked around at RSN. It looks like Forbes "contributors" like this are commonly considered to be somewhere between a normal blog and a newsblog, and so what really matters is if the author has an otherwise reliable reputation. So this does solidify that using the Kain quote as our primary lead content is undue and inappropriate. As far as using as a source at all, though, I still fail to see a problem. I see people arguing that because he writes about "games, industry, and culture" he is not qualified to talk about a social justice page. But this isn't a page about social justice; it's a pejorative/neologism -- part of culture, and in the context of his writing, intimately connected to video game culture. So again, while I agree that he was undue to quote from in the lead, I don't think there's any problem with using it as one of many sources. And I have to thank you for setting me straight about the Forbes blogs -- I didn't know they were so open. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He is a professional writer and this is his topic of expertise. Juno (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter how many times you assert it, Linguistics is NOT his topic of expertise and repetition will not make it so. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kain's piece may get some cred if we take Kain's other writing on GamerGate and video game controversies to be "expertise" on "social justice warriors" in general, but most of that seems to be on Forbes.com as well. But at this point it's really a matter of why opinions expressed in a Forbes blog are noteworthy to the topic. At any rate, there's clearly no consensus that Kain's piece is worth using here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Kain doesn't write about linguistics or about social justice. He writes about video games. That gives him no viable credibility or expertise to define the term. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof and TheRedPenOfDoom: (From above): This is an article just as much about culture, politics, activism, etc. as it is linguistics. Ensure you cite linguistics experts for phoneme and morpheme, but linguists aren't actually authorities on what reliable sources say about a term, nor do they constitute the only reliable sources. To argue that someone needs to be a linguist to talk about an issue like this is a little ridiculous. I agree that it is not an authoritative or properly summarizing definition such that it should be quoted directly, but the question now is whether to include it as a source (among many others). Why are you applying the "is he a linguist" test to this person and not every other source in that case? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

the focus in this section on Kain came because some editors were edit warring to insert (part of) Kain's definition as the primary definition in the lead. the fact that none of the other sources are linguists or subject matter experts either is also an issue.. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't argue that an article is problematic as a dicdef and then insist it be treated like a dictionary entry by insisting that sources be written by linguists. There is no precedent for that except on linguistics-related articles and, perhaps, if we were in fact using the quote. The quote is gone. The argument now is about whether to use that as a source (and, apparently, whether to use any non-linguist as a source??) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Good_research Of course I can argue that we need to use appropriate sources and subject matter experts for the topic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A linguist or rhetorician could point that out as a straw man argument, but the problem here is that this is not a linguistics article and the only reason you're arguing that linguistics makes sense is because you're treating this article as a dictionary definition or otherwise as an article about language, which it is not. It's an article related to culture, politics, activism, society, injustice, sexism, and so on -- because it's a concept, not just a term. You're trying to argue that someone who writes about culture and in particular the culture with which this concept is most frequently associated is not a reliable source to cite because of the subject matter he/she writes about. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

if this is an article about a game or a business you sure could have fooled me.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that someone who spends his time writing about video games does not have any particular credibility to define a term used virtually exclusively to denigrate people who are concerned with issues of gender, race, class and culture. You have presented no evidence that video games are "the culture with which this concept is most frequently associated." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But someone who spends his time writing about video games doesn't have credibility to talk about/describe/define a concept used virtually exclusively by people within video game culture? (edit conflict) regarding "no evidence," I'm just incredulous. Are you really saying the sources don't provide enough evidence that this term is not only closely associated with GamerGate but specifically used as a weapon by those on the "gamer"/"gamergater"/whatever side of things? Or are you saying that GamerGate has nothing to do with games and therefore we can't make this association? If the latter, whether or not gaming is used as a pretense to carry out acts of sexism, harassment, etc., that it is specifically gaming used as a pretense and that it is covered extensively in gaming press and associated with something called "Gamer"Gate means it's connected to games verifiably whether or not the connection properly explains the truth of what's happening. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it has been used is certainly clear, but there's no apparent evidence that it is widespread in gaming as opposed to the small GamerGate fringe, which overlaps with Men's Rights Activists and not by a small amount. The fact that Erik Kain wrote a couple of articles sympathetic to GamerGaters does not make him an expert in defining a slur wielded against GamerGate's opponents. Use of the term long predates the emergence of GamerGate. It is far more closely linked to anti-feminist and MRA sentiment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, @Cuchullain: I see you've removed Kain again citing WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. I won't be reverting again because I'd rather not participate in an edit war, but neither of those policies actually apply. Regarding BRD, the Kain quote was in there since the very first version of this article. In terms of BRD -- regardless of whether we determine it's reliable and/or should be included -- removing it is the bold action. As far as BURDEN, all you did was remove a source, not any material. Burden is about providing sources to back up statements -- it's why BURDEN is part of WP:V. I've already removed the quote -- how about a good faith self-revert, adding it back until this discussion progresses rather than pushing forward while citing policies that actually work against you. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it was there at the first part of the article isn't a particularly good reason to keep it there. Reading through it, I'm fairly sure the article itself was written initially to prove a WP:POINT and is certainly not WP:NPOV. Furthermore it is very similar to the article for this that was deleted less than a month ago --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And nobody made that argument. It was removed on BRD grounds. My point is not "hey it was in there before so it should still be in there". My point is that he/she removed something, I reverted, (the B and the R), then he/she reinstated it citing BRD. This is not an argument whatsoever on behalf of the content, just about the grounds on which it's being edit warred over. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

GG

Ok well first of all it's silly to avoid mentioning GamerGate. Yes, it's a mess, but this article is going to be connected to it by those involved whether or not it actually says anything about GamerGate in the article. A lot of coverage of this subject is in relation to GamerGate so, in a well developed article I would imagine it would even have its own section. Can we workshop a way to include it here first to avoid unnecessary edit wars, etc. at the article? Maybe someone provide a well-sourced sentence or two for discussion? I'll give it a go later today if nobody else does. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Very much agreed at GG does need to be mentioned at some point, even as reluctant as I am to open up that who can of worms. Juno (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"The slur was frequently hurled as part of the #Gamergate controversy" is pretty much all that can be said. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• This article, should it continue to exist, should explain that the term rose to prominence (well, prominence among the small niche of the internet who thinks the whole internet is paying attention) in 2014 in connection with Gamergate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Past use

I've seen several sources connecting this term to men's rights as well as the term employed by men's rights activists, but none of them are particularly reliable. Has anyone found good ones? Even if they're not "about" the term -- just for a statement connecting the two, which we already know are connected via the unreliable sources. If they don't exist, they don't exist. I've seen it used pejoratively in a variety of other contexts, too, of course -- and reliable sources for any non-GG context would be welcomed (and if I'm missing some of these that came up here or at the AfD, my apologies for being redundant).

Important note: The thing to ensure is that we find sources about the pejorative. I know this has been addressed in different ways already, but to reiterate/summarize/emphasize: the words "social justice" and "warrior" have been put together in the past as well as other forms of advocacy/activism plus "warrior" because "warrior" is a common metaphor for someone working hard or [again metaphorically] "fighting" for what one believes. But that isn't the subject of the article. It makes sense as a positive; what is notable is that it was turned into a pejorative; hijacked in a way. And then even a pejorative reappropriated to a positive on the pejorative's terms, if that makes sense. In other words, don't cite sources that simply invoke these three words unless it's in the context of being a negative or reappropriating a negative. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added this academic article with a definition about people pursuing social justice and being rejected by their communities for it, which is exactly the topic covered. It doesn't make sense to restrict the article to only pejorative uses if reliable sources are not using it only that way, what we need to do is cover all usages by RSs. The article should follow what sources say about the term, not the other way around. Diego (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The article is nominated for deletion for lack of sources, it doesn't make sense to reject those sources that would help establishing the notability of the topic. Diego (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That one might work, but how would you incorporate it? It's not exactly about the neologism although it's on-topic enough to include in some way. The problem with many of the sources I've seen, however, is that they simply invoke those three words in a generally positive context that could just as well be "social justice fighter" or "crusader for social justice" or any other similar metaphor. Those aren't going to help at AfD. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the modern pejorative term "social justice warrior", not about anyone and everyone who has ever been called a warrior for social justice. These are two totally different concepts, and per WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOT#DICDEF, we don't cover distinct concepts in the same article just because they happen to be called by the same term.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is specifically about the modern pejorative term "social justice warrior" Says who? I thought Wikipedia articles were about topics defined in reliable sources, not what editors' whims compel them to write about. Even if there were nuances to their different meanings, both should be merged into the same article. There are not enough content to write two separate articles, one about what SJWs do and a different one on how people use the name. Diego (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Diego I've reverted that change. I see you just added it to the lead, which entirely changes the subject of the article into either a pejorative or a positive, which is just not the case -- and it's that that will get the article deleted on DICDEF grounds. The subject here is the pejorative. We already have an article about social justice to talk about people who advocate for social justice issues. What we don't have is an article about this term being used against those people in a rather interesting way (culturally speaking). I know you're just trying to improve or even save the article from deletion, but that does more harm than good. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What may be useful about the article you found is that it provides some precedent for viewing people who act as "social justice warriors" as a negative, but again, it's not exactly in the same way so I think we should wait until the article builds out somewhat to see where it fits. Right now it would probably be undue. Know, however, that things aren't supposed to be deleted at AfD because of what sources are currently in the article, but what sources exist on the subject, so finding that is still helpful. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Diego, you'd have to have some reliable sources that are actually about this topic to define it as you do. So far, we have one or two that offer a very basic definition in an article about something else, a few others that happen to use the term in an article about something else, and then your sources that use the term, in a different sense, in an article about something else. None of this adds up to "article".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's you who needs sources that establish these as separate topics to talk about them being different concepts, if you want to make them as separate articles (and I've already shown the reliable sources that define the topic). Otherwise, an article titled "social justice warrior" should talk about what reliable sources have said about social justice warriors. I don't see any deep difference in meaning merely because some sources like the idea and use the term as praise while others use it as a pejorative - all uses are referring to the same concept, which is someone fighting for social justice as a cause (be it feminism, video games, or government corruption as in the academic source). Requiring separate articles for both points of view on this same basic idea would be a WP:POVFORK. Is this a Wikipedia:Broad concept article? Maybe, but it doesn't make sense to split it into subtopics in the way you suggest until we have enough material for a very long article first, which is clearly not the case. Diego (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "these" you're referring to or what other separate articles would be created. A topic on every possible use of the term "social justice warrior" is not encyclopedic. It's a dictionary entry with multiple definitions. What is notable is the use of this term in a particular way, reactions to that, characterizations associated with it, its use in the media, reappropriations, and so on. Sources defining the topic aren't absolutely necessary, but several that I and others have included do exactly that. What we need are more sources that treat it as a topic, not sources that merely define it, and not sources that use that combination of words in their commonsense meaning (as in, like I was describing above, "one who advocates (or 'goes to war') for social justice issues"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's the way we create articles on this encyclopedia. We look at how WP:reliable sources have defined a topic (preferably academic sources like the one I added), and expand that definition with usages in other sourcesto avoid the article being a WP:DICTDEF; but it doesn't make sense at this point to say "only these usages should be included and not the rest", because usages are defined by what sources cover, not by what editors think should be included; limiting the subject that way would be a violation of neutrality, as we must be guided by what all reliable sources say, not restrict our coverage to just the ones we prefer. "One who advocates (or 'goes to war') for social justice issues" is how the academic source defines the topic, so that should be the basis for the article, and we should expand from that.

If there are too many different uses to fit a single article, we split it into several sub-articles, as wikipedia is not paper and we don't have limits of size; however, we're far from that point. It doesn't make sense to start splitting the topic when we don't have enough material even for a C class article. Diego (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the key differences between an encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is) and a dictionary (which Wikipedia is not) is that the former deals with concepts and the latter deals with terms. In this case, we have on one hand sources (such as they are) describing "social justice warrior" as a facetious pejorative, and on the other, your sources describing "social justice warriors" who are actually warriors for social justice. We have no sources giving both senses. Dictionaries would give both senses in one entry; encyclopedias do not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) ?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

" writers who choose to examine the social and political subtexts of " <insert cause here>. Of course , but . Diego (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that pre-online culture discussions of SJW fall outside of this present term. Maybe a section on past use? Juno (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that could be a good way to integrate previous definitions with the recent appearances in the media pertaining the GamerGate, which seems to be the main usage. Diego (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disparate uses of the term should not be included unless sources explicitly link them. That's not the case here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The concept behind all the available references is the same: people who engage in public discourse to support a social cause. "Someone who uses social justice"..., "people who [...] engage in ‘social justice arguments on the internet", "any person [...] who argues online for political correctness or feminism", "...spend their time on social media condemning those who fail to live up to their own moral and ethical standards"...

These are the meanings attributed to the words by reliable sources, whether they agree that they describe a real phenomenon or are merely used as insults. All these fit within the academic definition of someone "who attacks existing social norms and programs to achieve greater social justice and advance social goals not readily accepted by the general public". There are no competing definitions here, no separate concepts, unless you're talking of a use/mention distinction that wouldn't merit separate articles (precisely because of WP:DICTDEF).

The sources are not specialized in linguistics, so they don't seem particularly suitable to talk about the history and evolution of the term, though they are all valid to establish the notability as a concept - and the concept being described is the same in all cases, unless you can provide a reference to establish that sources using the same words with similar meanings are referring to different topics. Diego (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely two different concepts, which are never covered together within the same source. And encyclopedia articles don't cover two distinct concepts in the same article simply because they're homographs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are two concepts, what are those two concepts, and how do they differ? What evidence do you have that, when the news media used as references say "social justice warrior", they aren't actually talking about people being criticized for defending social causes? (which is the concept described in the academic paper). Diego (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So what we have is

A small handful of sources describing the pejorative term "social justice warrior" with little detail or even agreed consensus as to the terms meaning. Another handful of sources that use the term "social justice warrior" in an entirely different way. No sources that discuss both or clarify how the uses differ or influence each other. Connecting the two would be WP:OR. It would make it look like there are more sources to include both but wouldn't improve the quality of the sources that we do have or really give more clarity to the article itself. This is a classic case of people saying "there are some sources, so it should be covered" without thinking about how that affects the quality of the article or whether it is useful for the topic to be covered in the first place. I guess at this point it depends whether you think Wikipedia should be a wiki of everything written ever from every single perspective however crank or fringe or if it should be an encyclopedia weighted to generally established or reliable sources that focus explicitly on said topic, of which, for this topic, there are few if any --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting

This article currently redirects to the social justice page and this has to be corrected. Social Justice refers to a cause and Social Justice Warrior refers to a type of person who fights for that kind of cause. Shannonfraser (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Things which should be included

I know that this page has been merged into the social justice article but there are a number of things that article doesn't address which the washington post talked about in one of their articlestime It talked about how it was used as positive and negative at different times in history, how its been included in the Oxford dictionary and how it became an insult. We also need to include the aspect of SJW's using social justice arguments to secure public status and inappropriate use of social justice arguments and terminology eg: SJW tendency to use valid social justice theories in excess to silence people, using terms like check your privilege, microaggression and racist to shut people up instead in addition to discussion designed to empower minorities Shannonfraser (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Article merge

This article has apparently been merged into the article on social justice but the article on social justice does not even contain the term social justice warrior. This content has been completely deleted and need sot be restored in some way. Either the person who deleted it fromt he social justice page should restore it or this page needs to be restored.Shannonfraser (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment

Came here via the reassessment request in the video games talk page tag. Not sure why the tag was added; this is pretty clearly a stub, as the article is only a few sentences long. Usually I'd add some ideas for improvement, but right now they'd all boil down to "add more content". Leaving as stub-class, dropping to low-importance because the topic is only tangential to video games. --PresN 15:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"pejorative"

I would support putting pejorative back in. I think all of the sources are pretty clear on this. One says in passing that it had a different meaning many years ago but it has a new meaning. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's only a pejorative when used in contempt. Like the term "liberal" many still embrace "social justice warrior" as their ideology but it can also be applied with derision and contempt. --DHeyward (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That is also my understanding. But the sources are pretty much unanimous on it being pejorative. WP:NOR. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Read the Salon source. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That article is an argument for people to not be offended by it. That supports my position. Strongly. An entire article about it being pejorative but the author not wanting it to be that way. 06:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost of hugh glass (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't. You clearly did not read the article. It is about the perceived victories of the Social Justice Warrior. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Although the term “social justice warrior” was constructed as an insult against progressive activists, the year 2015 has amply demonstrated why liberals should embrace the term." The rest of the article is supporting this statement. By saying they 'should' embrace it, it means they currently do not. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

...No it doesn't. The source embraces it, showing that the term is embraced, hence describing it as cool. I'm not getting what is so hard for you to get. Perhaps instead of calling me special ed you should get yourself checked out. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're not engaging in good faith. Here or in ANI. Twisting things around to try and get the result you want. The author embraces it. One person. The source does not. The source is clear that it's seen as pejorative. The whole purpose of the piece is to try and change that. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Good faith" Coming from this is laughable. I'm curious how long you think you'll stick around with that attitude, especially with you calling established editors trolls and POV pushers when they hurt your feelings. The source is clear that the term is being embraced. You keep moving the goal posts though. If you want more: [10] 96.253.53.16 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The source is clear that the author wants it to start being embraced and that it currently is not. This new source is interesting, they might like that on the Israeli Wikipedia. Given that you're obviously digging and that's the best you can do, it is clear few or no RS's exist to support your POV. A POV I happen to share, I'm just following policy and not trying to push it on Wikipedia like you are. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted to follow policy you wouldn't preface you edits with mocking terms like troll. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or POV pusher. So please, NPA. Also the source is in English and works here just fine. If you actually read the source you would have seen that. This is the English Wikipedia, not the GOHG Wikipedia.

NPOV requires relative balance. Given that the term is used by some as a positive the article should reflect that, hence not a pejorative. I'm not asking to remove the primary use of the term, just that it isn't just a pejorative. You have been given RS and you ignore them. I provide another and you ignore that one. I'm not going to keep looking up stuff for you, especially when we have enough here. The fact it can be used as a positive has been established. I understand this is difficult for you to understand but please take a break, your getting rather aggressive and rude. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears I either misunderstood your position, or you changed it. If you think the primary use is as a pejorative and a small number of people use it as a neutral term, then we agree. The sources reflect that. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The article should both point out that it's primarily used as a pejorative, and that there are positive usages (previous to its adoption as an internet thing, or after it recommending progressive people to embrace it for themselves [11]). Diego (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. So long as there are sources for the non-primary uses. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

NY Post source

Hey. I'm not sure how this source supports the sentence "Frequently initialized as SJW, the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a putatively disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation.". Especially not the fourth sentence of the source- "I suppose I’d prefer to be a Social Justice Ninja, because “warrior” lacks the intrigue and mystery that I always try to emulate in my Cat Woman costume at Halloween." Ghost of hugh glass, would you be able to explain? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, to him, I was a warrior for pushing a politically correct agenda by using rhetoric that wasn’t my own, but instead airy slogans right out of the leftist playbook. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ghost of hugh glass. Two things: One, this isn't the sentence you highlighted in your edit summary as the important one (that's the fifth line, not the fourth line.), and two, I don't understand its relevance to the sentence you're using it as a source for. Would you please explain? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I said 4th line, not sentence. There are four different breaks. The relevance is clear, you are just pushing your POV and want to improve the chances of deletion any way you can, such as removing name brand source like the NY Post. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I believe you intended to say 'fourth paragraph'. I truly don't see how you could source "Frequently initialized as SJW, the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a putatively disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation." to "I was a warrior for pushing a politically correct agenda that wasn't my own, but instead airy slogans right out of the leftist playbook.". Nothing about the paragraph you've highlighted covers pretense, disingenuity, or that it's to raise a person reputation. Please help me understand, as I clearly just don't get it! PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

How does a first-person opinion column titled "The doubts of a 'Social Justice Warrior'" satisfy the requirements of WP:Verifiability or WP:Identifying reliable sources for anything other than an opinion attributed to its author? The same question applies to almost every source I tagged as non-reliable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary

Removal of the Urban Dictionary external link because we 'really do not need it' does not seem warranted. It's extremely relevant, a number of our sources even use it as a source, establishing it's relevance. Doesn't qualify as a reliable source so it would either go under further reading or external links. I realize this is a term some people don't like and Urban Dictionary probably contains even more stuff people don't like but our point of views are not relevant here. This is an encyclopedia. People coming to this page would definitely want to see that. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable primary source of original research and unverified content. Per the Guidance on External Links and what is to be avoided. Even referring to it via secondary sources should be quite clear that there is no authority from which it speaks. Including it alongside the Oxford Dictionary clearly sets them both up as equals - and they are not. Koncorde (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually WP:EL doesn't say anything about not including sites like this. In fact it says to include "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." which this clearly meets. Sites like this is exactly why External Links exist. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. While Urban Dictionary isn't technically a wiki, I believe WP:ELNO 12 advises against including it as an external link.

Instead of POV pushing and edit-warring over including the link, why don't you start a discussion at WP:EL/N? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What POV am I pushing exactly? Neutrality? Does that count as a POV? Perhaps you can help me understand something: why do SJW's hate this article so much and want to obstruct it's improvement? Would you rather the world land on the Urban Dictionary definition when they seek to learn about it? Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If your edits were neutral or made any great sense then they would not be reverted. As it is you are just contributing train wreck edits then acting surprised when they are reverted. The idea is that this is encyclopedic. Not a repository of shit information (and that's coming from an inclusionist). Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

EL 2 specifically warns against the use of external links like this, particularly "unverifiable research". Also as a DICDEF now exists, it is also arguably factually incorrect. The content of the link is uncontrolled, anyone can submit additional meanings. Further the actual relevant quote is provided in almost all the supplied references. Also as per original comment - it is evidently not of the same level of authority as the Oxford Dictionary and we shouldn't pretend that it has any such legitimacy. I am not convinced we need the external link to the Dictionary for that matter, but it doesn't breach any guidelines. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Urban dictionary fails multiple criteria of WP:ELNO: 1 (it's not a unique resource, there are real sources we can use), 2 (by design, it contains "unverifiable research"), 11 (it falls into the category of "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" and is not written by a "recognized authority"), and 12 in spirit (it's not a wiki, but it's an open, user-generated site). It can't be included.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Popular culture" section

A "popular culture" section was re-added to this article today. It has nothing to do with social justice warriors, the subject of this article, and how they are portrayed in popular culture. (Because writing about that would take, you know, real research and require reliable secondary sources, of which there are virtually none.) Instead, it's about an episode of the TV show South Park and a new character on the show. That's off-topic, and it ought to be removed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's cruft. There may be a wider discussion of usage / context per Political_correctness#Modern_usage, but at the moment this is just crowbar "someone used the word". Okay, what's significant about the use? Koncorde (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass -- as the editor who has repeatedly added the "popular culture" section, would you care to comment? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be relying on your own original research. Numerous reliable sources say South Park was critiquing social justice warriors. Not a single source I'm aware of says otherwise. Therefore, what the RS's say is fact, as far as we are concerned. Given that this is an article about social justice warriors, I am at a complete loss as to how you could say that wouldn't be suitable under an In Popular Culture section. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a particular part of that 275K-page that you wanted me to read, Ghost of hugh glass? Neither "popular culture" nor "social justice warrior" appear there, nor do either of our names. Please link to the relevant section, if there is one.

You also seem to be confused. This is not an article about social justice warriors (people). It is an article about "Social Justice Warrior" (a term). Did I miss something in the sources? I read them carefully, and I think they were all about an animated TV show and people—such as social justice warriors—they thought the show mocked. I don't recall a single word about English-language phrases such as "Social Justice Warrior"—you know, the subject of this article.

Remind me again who's engaging in original research? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:POPCULTURE/WP:TRIVIA sections have been deprecated for many years. None of the sources have much to say about this material other than mentioning that this South Park character is apparently a "social justice warrior". I've removed it pending discussion here that it should be included in some other form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

One of those links is an essay the other doesn't deal with this. This article is about a term. RS's say an example of this term was purposely depicted and critiqued in South Park. What exactly would qualify as 'In popular culture' if not that? Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA most certainly does deal with pop culture sections, and yes, such sections have been deprecated for many years. Simply saying that "[writers/blogger x] said [character y] is a social justice warrior" is trivia and not encyclopedic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The RS's go in depth about the critique South Park was making and why the character was a social justice warrior. One of the RS's is titled 'South Park Declares War on Social Justice Warriors' and the entire article explains why. That's not just a 'X said Y is a social justice warrior.' If you'd like to remove the 'In popular culture' heading, feel free to name it something else. Also feel free to expand it. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass, please read WP:ONUS, which says:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

As others have said, the burden is on you to establish consensus that this material belongs in the article, not the other way around. Repeating "But it has reliable sources" is not good enough. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no point trying to reach consensus with you, you're POV pushing and not editing in good faith. You're obstructing any attempted improvements to the article, on any flimsy grounds you can come up with, such as straw man arguments like the one you just made -- I'm not simply saying 'but it has reliable sources' as anybody who reads what I have written can attest. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Per Cuch. The tags were far from controversial for a section that said no more than "X said that Y said Z" even if 3 people all said it. Koncorde (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on the editor adding or restoring challenged material to defend it. Again, this is trivia and does not belong in the article. Please do not add it again until you establish consensus to include it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass: Again, the burden of evidence is on you to support your challenged material. You are edit warring, please stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have provided that evidence. You falsely claiming it's a simple 'x said y about n' doesn't make it so. The RS's go in depth in their analysis and examination of the term. I have expanded the article to reflect that. Feel free to expand it yourself. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't decide that unilaterally. You need to establish consensus for this challenged material, and you need to stop edit warring immediately. We have already explained the issues with your material - it's trivial and unencyclopedic. Your recent attempts made the section longer, but not any less trivial.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not trivial, repeating that over and over wont make it true. The RS's contain much more than a simple reference. There is in depth examination and analysis. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the material says anything relevant about the phrase "Social Justice Warrior", which is the subject of this article. Describing the character is not "in depth examination and analysis".--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

All you're doing is repeating the same thing over and over. I've demonstrated how you are wrong, your handwaves with no justification don't change that. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass, if you really do want this to be somewhere, it'd be better placed on the South Park article or the season 19 article here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It does appear to be no more than a pen profile of a character. It's almost relevant enough to be a "see also" but is total trivia and written that way too. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds that we have consensus to remove the trivia section, or in the very least no consensus to keep it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet.[12]--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No surprise. I held my tongue out of politeness on that one. Anyway, the section is trivia by any other name, and even the added bit about "some people call students social justice warriors" is utter cruft. Koncorde (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Daily Dot source

Hey. We can't use an opinion piece to source fact, unless the fact is that a writer has an opinion (in which case we phrase it as X has stated Y.) For that reason, I removed the daily dot source from the last sentence in the lede. Ghost of hugh glass, you reinserted that source. Do you have any non-opinion piece sources we could use? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an opinion piece. I'm confused how this fits into your agenda. Why would you want to hide from the world that some SJW's like the term? Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you dense? The URL includes the word "opinion" and the first word on the page -- above the title -- is "opinion". It's an opinion column. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you persist with your harassment and personal attacks, I will be reporting you at ANI. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean, it is clearly marked as an opinion piece. That doesn't automatically disqualify it as a source, but surely you must admit that much? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit that was a personal attack, at least the 10th from that editor directed at me in the last week or so. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Being an opinion column doesn't mean it's not a reliable source, but it does mean it's not a reliable source for facts. It can be used as a source for the author's opinion, with in-text attribution. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It is an example of an attempt to rehabilitate the name. However we might want to rephrase it that's what it's trying to do. Similarly a couple of the other sources refer to people trying to use the term with a degree of pride. It's a bit meta, but it is evidence. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem (in my opinion) with this line of thinking is that it delves a bit into WP:OR. Rather than repeating what the source is saying, we would be using the source as an example of something, which I think could be an issue. I could be wrong! PeterTheFourth (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In the end I just re-shuffled the intro bits. If it isn't supported by the sources bin the sentence or make it part of the origin / meaning section with regards to the "positive" aspects as an opinion. The dearth of actual sources is overwhelming. There are a few maybe of little more relevance to the overall article. Even the reliable sources are supplying little more than Opinion or Comment pieces. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

'In practice' section

I don't see why we need this section. It seems to be just another rehash of the 'cultural references' trivia section that we previously agreed not to have. Care to explain, Torchiest? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree here. While I understand the impulse to include examples of usage, I'm not sure it's helpful or, in a more granular sense, why these examples are so notable as to merit inclusion? Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just examples of "X said Y about Z". Far from analysis. I have to say I have never seen an "in practice" section before and can't imagine what its actual purpose is. Koncorde (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't the best section title. I was thinking something like context might be better. I've added back one source into the origin and meaning section. It was not in the original cultural trivia section that was removed a while back. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why the Cathy Young quote is particularly notable or worthy of inclusion; to me, it is political analysis involving the term rather than something more about the origin or usage of the term. I would say the article is better without it. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

as to notability, Oxford Dictionaries have an entry for the word

they have no entry for Gamergate itself. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/social-justice-warrior --Ryubyss (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Usage section

I just removed a large "Usage" section. The sources are helpful, so I'm copying the content here, but there are two problems with this. First, "usage" is not an explanation of the concept. Usage might be an appropriate way for an encyclopedia to explain a neologism, but this sense of usage is just a list of examples of usage, which is the domain of Wiktionary (with exception, of course). The other [directly related] problem is that the sources are just citations of the usage, not sources talking about the usage. In other words, if Bill Maher used the term and then the New York Times talked about his usage of the term, that would be one thing, but here we just have someone uttering the term and us citing his utterance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, a "usage" section which comprises only examples of usage rather than discussion of usage is more or less the same as a "trivia" or "in popular culture" section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Usage

Game studio Nonadecimal Creative created an RPG entitled Social Justice Warriors, which was released on May 12, 2014. Bill Maher used the term on an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher to refer to a group of people on the internet who were accusing David Bowie of molestation due to then fifteen-year-old Lori Maddox losing her virginity to him in 1972, which Maher argued that Maddox didn't regret her decision later in life, and the story was only dug-up after Bowie's death so that the journalists could give themselves profile. On Twitter, comedian Patton Oswald joked about himself "Ugh. You WERE joking. And I went off like a half-cocked SJW high on outrage. Which I hate about the internet." The webcomic Cyanide & Happiness had a comic where Mario and Luigi from the Mario franchise are walking down the street and Wario shouts "Stop appropriating Italian culture!" and Mario says to Luigi "Gettin' sick of all these social justice Warios." Satirical website ClickHole once published an article entitled "This Might Not Be 'Politically Correct' Enough For You Overly Sensitive Social Justice Warriors, But All Of The Planets Are Men". The term has been used in articles and blogs published by International Business Times, The Irish Independent, The New York Observer, New York Post, The Independent, Daily Mail, The A.V. Club, Reason, The Guardian, Salon, Breitbart, BBC, The Observer, The Rebel Media, among many others. References