Jump to content

Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Not neutral point of view

The article doesn't represent a neutral point of view approach as it is strongly affected by conservative bias.

For example, "progressive" is often used as synonym to "liberal" as opposed to conservative and also article puts into negative/'pejorative' context such views as progressive/liberal and feminism (feminism is also more linked with liberal views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterixf2 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Okay, if we were to accept your premise, what changes do you think should be made to the article? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see urban dictionary entry for an example --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The Urban Dictionary page is an example of what? Usage? There are obvious issues with using Urban Dictionary as a source. Let me know. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, regardless of whether it's a reliable source, the Urban Dictionary page is doing a much better job of explaining the term than this one.18.189.90.47 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That can happen! Sometimes Wikipedia policies mean it's a little slow to catch up to the world. But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job. That's just me, though! Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to have the term explained then go to the dictionary. This barely qualifies as an article, never-mind an explanation of the term, which is not what wikipedia is about. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruption of this talk page

Disruption of this talk page is inappropriate.

Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

Let's keep the focus to discussing what is represented in the preponderance of reliable sources.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Recentism and POV

Article itself notes term dates to before 1991 as laudatory.

Then article contradicts itself before this to say term is pejorative and originated in 2015.

This is both recentism and POV violations.

Term clearly should first be described in chronological order, in its earliest origination as a laudatory term, first.

Then progress in chronological order to when it first began to be used as a pejorative.

To do the opposite is unencyclopedic POV violation.

— Cirt (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Commentary thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure this is the right approach, as nothing tells me the term was notable before its recent incarnation, so to speak. We're interested in the term insofar as it has a real place in the zeitgeist; I think stricter etymological approaches are better left for other places. Then again, I'm wrong about plenty. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Encyclopedia article should present a straight chronological approach. This article currently fails that. — Cirt (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, where the term is notable in a different sort of order than strict chronology, that should be taken in to account. I think it makes sense here to discuss the recent and much more notable usage, and then (maybe) mention the antedated examples. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That is POV on your part. The term predates usage in a positive fashion and is quite notable as such, as well. Both are notable. Both should be represented. Neither is antedated or subsumed by the other. To subjectively selectively choose to ignore one over the other and ignore secondary source usage of one over the other is blatant NPOV violation and wrong. — Cirt (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it wrong to note that a press release from Partners in Health doesn't carry the same notability weight as, say, the Washington Post? And for the record, not only do I believe in violations and wrong, I'm pretty evil when you get right down to it, or so I am told. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It is wrong to ignore all sources pre-2015 due to subjective POV, and that is a violation of NPOV, yes. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You're not listening. The term is evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The term has both positive and negative connotations. Both should be described in the article in the chronological order to accurately present their history. — Cirt (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not being clear. The term "social justice warrior" is not evil. The term for me is "evil." Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We should focus on the chronological appearance of the term throughout history in sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not a very evil approach, and thus I can't really support it. Turn up the evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Instead of arbitrarily picking a method to depict an article, the article should rely on source usage of the term over time. And not ignore any particular time period. For example, we should not ignore all sources pre-2015. — Cirt (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We should ignore all sources that aren't evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Such arbitrary definition of source selection is contrary to Wikipedia site policy. — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Preferring sources based on their wickedness, and yes, their evil, is anything but arbitrary. All hail the dark lord of NPOV violations! Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
By using sources throughout history and presenting them in chronological order, we can show the reader how the term developed and changed over time. — Cirt (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
By focusing on evil, we can engulf this encyclopedia in cyberflames which cannot be quenched. Dumuzid (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't be evil. — Cirt (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Google is not Wikipedia. EVIL. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Please I urge you to take the time to read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thank you very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You clearly haven't been around long enough to be told of the secret sixth pillar. I don't want to give it away, but here's a hint: it's EVIL. Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


The article is "Social Justice Warrior", a specific relatively recent term. It's capitalized. The words "social justice" + "warrior" have been combined in the past just like any other rough synonym for "advocate" or "activist" could be combined with "social justice" in a positive sense. This article is about a particular neologism that's used as a pejorative, though, not just the combination of words. That the words have been used together previously is worth a very brief mention at best. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The vast preponderance of secondary sources pre-2015 use the exact term "social justice warrior" in a positive sense. The fact that it is capitalized or not is irrelevant. — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
(comment withdrawn) Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Dumuzid (talk · contribs): Please stop. Your inane ramblings on this talk page are disruptive. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The vast preponderance of secondary sources pre-2015 use the exact term "social justice warrior" in a positive sense. The fact that it is capitalized or not is irrelevant. You started this by saying I'm incorrect, but you're only emphasizing the distinction. One term is a pejorative, usually capitalized, and appeared just in the last couple years. Another term is a more literal meaning of the combination of words, not capitalized, and used for about as long as the term "social justice" has been used because it's just a charged synonym for "advocate" in this non-pejorative sense. There are also sources about "social justice fighter", "warrior for social justice", and, as I indicated in my previous message, any "social justice [rough synonym for advocate]" because those sources aren't about this term. I don't have a big problem mentioning that it had been used before if sources talking about the pejorative do the same, but we shouldn't be including sources about that three word combination independent of the pejorative any more than we would include sources which mention people who literally just stepped off a ship in the article about fresh off the boat or sources about a church group that happened to meet in a cafeteria in the article for Cafeteria Christianity (i.e. the term did not evolve from "Christianity discussed/practiced in a cafeteria" to the pejorative meaning -- it's a separate concept). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, obviously, with Rhododenrites, but also, I think there's an issue of WP:UNDUE. I absolutely agree that social justice warrior was not always the pejorative it is today, but the examples currently set up as a seeming counterpoint to the discussion from the Oxford English Dictionary strike me as a clear case of undue weight. To wit, for current positive uses, we cite to: (1) a press release from Partners in Health, which references an honorary degree given by Regis College, a small Catholic institution outside of Boston; (2) The Stringer, an online-only Australian newspaper; and (3) an essentially non-notable book on ecological justice, a citation which has no context (or even a page number). Without intending to denigrate any of these sources, this small farrago is insufficient for the proposition that the non-pejorative use of this term is alive and well, which is seemingly what is implied. I obviously think it's worth retaining the OED's gloss on how the meaning has changed, but these sources hurt the article more than help and seem to me not properly weighted. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. To source information about the history of the term, we need secondary sources that discuss the phrase (like the Washington Post article), not primary sources that merely use the phrase. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I also think you're wrong Cirt. This article is about the noteworthy (tenuous, please see the argument that it barely qualified as more than a DICDEF) use as a neologism and pejorative. It's okay to mention its earlier use, but there is only one source actually directly referencing the two uses - and none of the other sources discuss its use, only refer to it. This is synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of you above that more research and secondary sources would be ideal. But the earlier term is the more used one. Both terms should be amply described in this article. In their chronological order. — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, you claim that "the earlier term is the more used one." Do you have a secondary source for that claim, or is that your original research? I would respectfully ask that you slow down your editing as you are clearly now going against talk page consensus. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dumuzid:I'd respectfully rather engage in civil discourse with others that are able to do so. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So, Cirt, if I were to put that another way, you didn't hear me? Ignore me if you like, but I'd ask that you not ignore talk page consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite sorry, it is most unfortunate that the earlier exchange with Dumuzid was quite disturbing and illustrated a lack of willingness to engage in rational discourse. DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sorry! But I'm not asking you deal with me. Just that you slow down a bit and look for talk page consensus before making wholesale changes to the article. While we're at it, your citation to Beyond Diversity Day strikes me again as totally undue and as a usage rather than an explanation of the term. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any assistance from other editors to help research further among additional secondary sources. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits and contributions so far indicate otherwise as you have effectively railroaded some bold, but terrible, edits. Lets be clear - the notability of "Social Justice Warrior" is not lent by any historical context. I have no idea what your problem is, but you clearly have one. Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
My only problem recently is with the inappropriate behavior of Dumuzid (talk · contribs). Other than that, I'm most happy to work with others to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia so they reflect the preponderance of sources out there. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not the behaviour you are exhibiting, with or without the smiley. Colour me surprised but 4 experienced editors largely don't agree with your changes so far, although maybe I am overstating my opinion of Rhododendrites,Dumuzid and Grangers stance. Koncorde (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps give me a chance. I've written several Featured Articles on Wikipedia and a good deal of Good Articles. I apologize if recent inappropriate behavior by Dumuzid (talk · contribs) DIFF may have colored my impression of respondents to this article talk page. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Your chances do not interest me when you started with an argument to start with which you escalated into hatting and then making a public demonstration. As it stands almost nothing you have contributed has improved the article. Given your inclination to change this to an article about 'social justice warrior the sentence structure' from the pejorative neologism (which defeats the phrases single case of notability I might add) I very much doubt you are going to make much forward progress with consensus. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Not sure what's going on here but I wanted to ask everyone to turn down the heat a bit. Topics like this attract edit warriors from outside Wikipedia, and things can get testy when interacting with these kinds of editors. However, everyone in this thread appears to be a well-established contributor and so you should remember to assume good faith of other editors and remember that they are here for the same reason you are, to improve the encyclopedia. There's no reason we can't discuss this topic within the bounds of civility. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly was a less than helpful earlier, because I had my good faith arguments rejected out of hand, and got the feeling I was being railroaded very quickly. That's why I don't mind, Cirt, if you don't want to deal with me. But again I would ask that you respect the talk page consensus. And Koncorde, as you might guess, I think you capture my opinion pretty well. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Dumuzid (talk · contribs), most appreciated. You were less than helpful. It was most confusing. I apologize I was not trying to railroad you. I'm merely trying to improve the quality of this article with additional sources. I hope we can all work together to improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Term is downscale per Oxford English Dictionary

Term is downscale, per Oxford English Dictionary:

  • "social justice warrior". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 March 2016.

— Cirt (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the Oxford English Dictionary, and I don't see where it says "downscale". What does "downscale" mean in this context? Was it a typo for "derogatory"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The article should be located at social justice warrior, not "Social Justice Warrior". — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect, per the arguments for notability. The fact we nicely referred to some historical uses of the term is the absolute most that could be reliably sourced as comment about the "historical sense". Its association to "social justice" as a concept was also completely debunked - the pejorative has no demonstrable link. All of this is dealt with in the comments above and discussions already had. You are not introducing new information but parsing the content that did exist into some kind of synthetic article. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article at present does indeed rely upon secondary sources, including The Washington Post citing the chief editor of U.S. dictionaries for Oxford University Press who notes that, yes, it did have a positive connotation, first. — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not why the article exists. Your opening sentence is a lie, the article is now abominable, and is now synthesis where you are trying to find sources to meet the POV you believe is correct. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, as far as I can tell, no one is disputing that the phrase "social justice warrior" was used in positive contexts. Our argument is that the neologism commonly abbreviated as "SJW" is an independent linguistic phenomenon and that this page should not simply be a history of every time the words "social," "justice," and "warrior" have been combined. I'm not quite sure you understand the stance the rest of us are taking. ETA: Upon review, I have to agree with Koncorde that the first sentence seems especially wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The latter term evolved from the former. To ignore such history is simply silly. I have no idea why earlier usage of the exact same phrase "social justice warrior" is not relevant here. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, again, you are dismissing the talk page arguments out of hand, which does not strike me as helpful. You certainly don't evince any desire to work with others in a collegial way, as shown by your continued editing without consensus. I'd respectfully ask again that you cease editing the main article until we can get some sense of our bearings. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Dumuzid, I'm sorry but I'm in the process of additional research. I'm not sure why additional good sources should not be added to the article. I don't know why the article should be frozen in a previous state for all eternity. That is most confusing. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
...your lack of idea is the issue? If you look above, at the weight of discussions both here, the deletion logs and at social justice there's already a wealth of commentary about what this article. You haven't been wholesale reverted by me out of civility, but the current article is beastly and that you appear happy to be building something like this is clearly of concern to a number of editors. Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, the rest of the talk page seems to agree that the sources you are adding, are not, in fact, good sources. I wish you could hear that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Which one? Why? — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, you would do better to work on this draft on a talk page or sandbox. You do not look to have any support for these changes and several people raising concerns. Right now the first sentence of this article is ""Social justice warrior", commonly abbreviated as "SJW", originated as a laudatory term for those engaged in social justice." That is a major change. Will it require one of us to revert to move forward in the WP:BRD process or can you address these many objections before pushing forward? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, I ask of you to be patient and give me a chance with additional research. — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The solution is not to wholesale change the meaning of an article, then beg for time to do it when the article - even with your edits - will not change its meaning because it has nothing to do with the laudatory meaning in this context. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we agree the pejorative meaning evolved from the laudatory meaning, per secondary source The Washington Post ? — Cirt (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Does it say "evolved" in the article? Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Washington Post wrote "Here’s how 'social justice warrior' became a part of that debate" and described "When it was a compliment" and traced examples of its usages in positive forms and subsequently early negative forms. -- that's pretty much step-by-step tracing the term's history. We should follow the model of that secondary source, and do the same, here in this Wikipedia article. — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, you do realize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, right? In-depth etymologies are at best unnecessary and at worst distractions. For example, though truthiness is a known usage from as far back as the nineteenth century, for obvious reasons, our article focuses on Stephen Colbert's usage. I am not saying this instance is as cut-and-dried as that, but we're working with similar principles. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We've been through this before with the Southwork/Van Slyke paper. Cirt, the first page clearly says "Please do not cite without authors’ permission."[1] Unless you have permission or some other reason to believe that the use is authorized, I would recommend taking those citations out of the article. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Truthiness is a much bigger article and goes into way more depth and breadth and scope and cites sixty-one sources. That's great! Also, we have the secondary source here The Washington Post, that does indeed trace the usage of the term both positive and negative, and we should take our model from The Washington Post, a secondary source. That cite note for Southwork/Slyke is not for Wikipedia, but a note for other late academic journals. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Cirt, there is nothing that suggests the disclaimer on the front page of that conference presentation paper does not apply to Wikipedia. You are now simply making up your own rules. If that's the best argument you have, then I think those references need to be removed. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done, I've contacted the authors of that paper to see if there's a more recent version of that publication. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting that Wikipedia was not magically excepted from the plain language request on the front page. At this point, I think the wisest course of action would be to revert to the last stable version of the article, in essence, yesterday. Dumuzid (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That is a most unfortunate response, to wholesale revert everything. Surely we can discuss how to improve the article after all my research so far? — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect Cirt, I think the version of the article prior to your research is preferable. I think you would do an excellent job on Wiktionary, for the record. But I don't intend to do anything here unilaterally. Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dumuzid:So you think a wholesale revert of literally ALL my edits is appropriate? You think all my archiving citations is bad? You think it was bad for me to add missing authors to citations? You think we should undo all my improvements to citations? — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I do. I think a rollback to a stable version is a good idea here. I might very well be the only person who thinks so, but that's what I would do were I king of the world. Let's both be grateful that I'm not! Dumuzid (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
When considering reverting a number of changes to the article, please remember to take care not to also remove non-controversial improvements like expanding citations. Also, I know that this is a frustrating situation for everyone, but please don't accuse other editors of thinking "archiving citations is bad". I'm sure there is room for compromise here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Good points all, Gamaliel, I'm sorry about that. I agree with you and I also sincerely hope there is some room for compromise here. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of archive links, if the original link is still active, the "dead-url=no" parameter should be added so that the live URL remains the primary one. If at a later time the link goes dead someone can flip set it to "yes". — Strongjam (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Strongjam, I've gone ahead and further improved the existing citations in the article, so this is now  Done. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Organization of the lead

I'm starting a new section because the discussion above seems to be getting sidetracked. As I see it, the biggest problem with the current version of the article is that the lead begins with the secondary meaning of the phrase (secondary in that it is discussed less by sources) and doesn't seriously discuss the primary (pejorative) meaning until the second paragraph. In my opinion, the lead should begin by talking about the pejorative meaning, because this is the meaning that is most discussed in reliable sources. Do other editors agree? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Granger, that is a most helpful and specific suggestion. Does this look a bit better? — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I do think that's better, but I would go further. I would change the first sentence to something like
"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights and civil rights.
and then start talking about the laudatory meaning and the history of the term in the second paragraph. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the specific recommendation, Mr. Granger, I really truly appreciate your collegiality and helpfulness here, very much !!! Is this a little bit better now? — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That looks better to me; thanks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The next major problem that I see is the Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education quote. The source does use that quote, but not in a discussion of the term "social justice warrior"—rather, the quote is simply talking about social justice activism in an article that happens to use the phrase "social justice warrior" several times. I suggest removing the sentence altogether. (I would remove it myself, but I think I may have reached my third revert for the day, so I would appreciate it if Cirt or someone else could remove the sentence.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Trimmed that source from the article. Better? — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Next, I would like to rephrase the section titles. The "Origin and meaning" section only discusses one of the two meanings, so I'd like to change that title to just "Origin", or to something else that doesn't suggest that the section is talking about the only meaning of the phrase. I would also like to change the other section title to something that doesn't mention Gamergate, because not all of the section is about Gamergate. Maybe that section could just be titled "Pejorative use". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done, at this change -- look better? — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I think the article looks quite a bit better now—I'll do a bit of copyediting at some point, but there are no other urgent problems jumping out at me. Maybe other editors have more suggestions for improvement, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Mr. Granger, together we've reached an effective compromise and improved the quality of the article greatly. Its prior version was basically a stub with eight (8) sources, and the current version brings together information from twenty (20) sources. I agree with you, Mr. Granger, that this version of the article serves and informs our readers much better than the prior version. Thank you, Mr. Granger, for your most thoughtful and helpful and specific and polite suggestions, I really appreciate it very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The volume of the article has increased, rather than anything qualitative, and there's about 3 pieces of commentary worth retaining that expand beyond what already existed. The majority is crufty quotes. The In Popular Culture portion is about the best bit added of any relevance. Koncorde (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging the In popular culture section which I researched, created, and added, adds some good value to the article, most appreciated! I feel the additional research I've done incorporating further sources helpfully shows differing perceptions of the term over time. I'd have to say I agree here with Mr. Granger after we had some great collaboration and compromise after positive discussion, who said: "I think the article looks quite a bit better now". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde that the long list of quotes is a bit much—it would be good to cut them down and summarize the information from them. —Granger (talk · contribs)

Okay, what suggestions do you propose to summarize these new sources a bit? — Cirt (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cites in lede sect

Please I'd prefer the lede sect only has name-ref of cites, and the full citations themselves then can appear later on in the article body text.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regular or capitalised title

For what it's worth, I agree that the title should be 'Social justice warrior', not 'Social Justice Warrior' with all words beginning with a capital. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with PeterTheFourth. For many reasons, including as explained by 97198 at Special:Permalink/713144571 and carried out by admin Anthony Appleyard. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Permstrump

Edits by Permstrump (talk · contribs) reduced quality of article by:

  1. Removing sources
  2. Moving full citations up into lede sect where they should not be located
  3. Violating WP:LEAD, per WP:LEAD, lede sect should be able to function on its own as a complete standalone summary of entire article's contents.

For these reasons, these edits are inappropriate.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Performed a few more minor copy edits for tense uniformity, keep all lede intro sect in past tense. — Cirt (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I like that we now have four brief succinct paragraphs for the WP:LEAD. Hopefully this now looks a bit more improved to all. :) — Cirt (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply. This was my thought process...
  1. I rearranged the order of some sentences and therefore some of the citations and if the same source was referenced twice in a row in the same lead paragraph, I made the first one invisible (~2x), but I didn't remove any citations completely.
  2. Per WP:CITELEAD, everything in the lead doesn't have to be cited as long as it's cited in the body for readability and flow. If things are cited in the lead (which these things already were), it doesn't matter if it's the full citation or not, because it looks the same to the reader either way. If there's some other policy that I'm not aware of, I won't do it again. If not, personally, I think working with citations is easier when the full citation is attached to the first time that source is referenced because then it's easier to find. The citations I moved were ones that I had to look for to edit for some reason or another, like adding a link. I don't really feel that strongly about it, so you can put them where ever you want or in the future, I will put them where ever a specific policy says they belong.
  3. Paragraph 1 reads: "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights and civil rights.[1][2][3] And paragraph 3 read (it has since been changed slightly): The negative connotation was popularized during the Gamergate controversy and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][3] That is needlessly redundant, so in my revision, I merged the examples of the common ways SJW is used negatively and put them all in the first sentence. And then I removed the examples from the later sentence since its use as a pejorative was already clearly defined in the first sentence, as in: "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for social liberalism, civil rights, political correctness, and feminism.[1]... The negative connotation was popularized during the Gamergate controversy.[3][2]" (In retrospect, I should have changed "social liberalism" to "civil rights" or some other synonym since "social liberalism" is basically repeating "socially progressive views," which appears earlier in the sentence.)
  4. I don't think I violated WP:LEAD. The only thing I removed was this line (which appears in the current version): The Washington Post traced its usage "when it was used as a compliment" to its subsequent inclusion in debate with a negative connotation.[3] It's misleading since WaPo didn't say they traced it and it's kind of missing their entire point. From the source:

    More than 20 years ago, the term was generally used as a neutral or even complimentary describer. Here’s a clip from a 1991 write-up of a Montreal jazz festival, from the Montreal Gazette... lexicographers [at Oxford University Press] haven’t done a full search for its earliest citation. But a cursory search for the phrase turns up several positive uses, spanning from the early ’90s through the early ’00s.

The whole point of the article is that in August 2015, Oxford Dictionary online added an entry for social justice warrior and defined it as "an informal, derogatory noun referring to 'a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views,'" but then when WaPo asked Oxford Dictionary how they came to that conclusion, the head of the US dictionary was like, "I don't know. We haven't really looked into it, but UrbanDictionary says it's negative. Now that you asked... I googled it and found a lot of positive uses. The first one in a "cursory search" is from 1991. Looks like in about 2011 is when it started to be used negatively per UrbanDictionary." This WP article makes it sound like there's been serious scholarship into history of the phrase and the definitive conclusion is that historically, it was always used as a compliment and now it's always used as an insult. I'm about 99% positive that when they do ever look into it, it will turn out that everyone that used to use it positively is still using it positively and that gamergaters, redditors and people who make comments on youtube videos are the only people who even know it could be used as an insult. PermStrump(talk) 14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to reply

  1. Prefer not to make things "invisible", makes future editing easier for editors.
  2. This article has generated some controversy and disputes. That is why it is best to have every single sentence cited by in-line citations, yes, including in the lede intro sect.
  3. Not redundant, because the latter evolution of the term evolved concurrent with the Gamergate controversy, and so should be given in that sentence in order to be chronological.
  4. We should present the lede in the same chronological order as the article itself. The Washington Post article is a good model to follow for this. As for your comment: "This WP article makes it sound like there's been serious scholarship into history of the phrase and the definitive conclusion is that historically, it was always used as a compliment and now it's always used as an insult. I'm about 99% positive that when they do ever look into it, it will turn out that everyone that used to use it positively is still using it positively and that gamergaters, redditors and people who make comments on youtube videos are the only people who even know it could be used as an insult." -- I'm not sure that's backed up by anything other than your personal opinion, and that's perfectly okay on the talk page. But in the article itself, I'd prefer to rely on secondary sources, and I really like the model used by The Washington Post article for this.

— Cirt (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:re:re:
  1. The only things I made invisible were 2 times where the same source was cited in back-to-back sentences I made the first one invisible to make it an easier read per WP:CITEKILL. I only did it in lieu of completely deleting citations in instances where the statements were already sufficiently cited without the invisible one.
  2. Other than the 2 instances above, I'm not arguing that citations should be taken out of the lead. My 2nd point was to address why I moved the full citation to the top. I did that because, as far as I know, there isn't a policy that suggests full citations shouldn't be in the lead. That's not what WP:CITELEAD is about, which I explained more in my first reply. Unless there's a policy I don't know about, it's just a matter of personal preference. My preference was to move the ones I had to search for the top, so I could find them, and IMHO, it would also be easier for other editors since intuitively, one would expect the full citation to appear with the earliest reference. It's not something I feel strongly about, so if that's not your personal preference, it's not like I'm going to go to the trouble of moving them again. I had only done it when I was working with the citations for other reasons.
  3. I disagree. IMHO it's better to give those 3 examples in the first sentence to enhance the reader's understanding of how SJW is used pejoratively from the very beginning. Then later when it says the negative connotation was popularized by gamergate, there's no need to elaborate. It's more concise and doesn't lose any meaning.
  4. The last sentence is clearly my opinion, but the rest of it I was paraphrasing (tongue-in-cheek) from the source. The source isn't trying to imply anything definitive or scholarly.

    in August, “Social Justice Warrior” was included in the latest batch of words added to Oxford Dictionaries. The online dictionary from Oxford University Press defined the phrase as an informal, derogatory noun referring to “a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.” For those following the [gamergate] controversy and its diaspora, that particular addition to the dictionary was interesting. It is very, very difficult to find a reliable accounting of what the phrase actually means, and to whom it refers precisely, and why... Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at the Oxford University Press, said in an interview last month... lexicographers there haven’t done a full search for its earliest citation. But a cursory search for the phrase turns up several positive uses, spanning from the early ’90s through the early ’00s. So how did Social Justice Warrior become an insult? Since Social Justice Warrior is still pretty new to lexicographers, Martin didn’t have a definitive answer. Online, it’s hard to do the archaeology because there seems to be some confusion over the when the specific term emerged... Although Martin isn’t entirely sure when “Social Justice Warrior” switched from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one, the year 2011 seemed to be a turning point. That’s the year, Martin said, the insult first appeared on Twitter. And it’s when UrbanDictionary user poopem composed an entry for it. “It looks like it was the year that social justice warrior flipped,” Martin said.

    Our article is interpreting this WaPo story way too seriously. PermStrump(talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump:We should use The Washington Post source as a model because it is a secondary source and we want to avoid violating WP:NOR. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should use it as a source and as a model, but currently, we're misrepresenting it. I'm not suggesting we use my tongue-in-cheek version. I was just trying to explain how we're misinterpreting it without going to the effort of copying the exact quotes that people could easily read for themselves, which I've now done. Our article should not be worded in such a decisive way. It should acknowledge that the same people who defined it as having a negative connotation (Oxford Dictionary) also admitted to not having done thorough research on its history and the statements made in the recent interview were only based on a "cursory search." PermStrump(talk) 15:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. That makes sense. In that case, we can add that into the article body text itself. We should avoid directly introducing new material in the lede sect that is not in the article body text, as that violates WP:LEAD. — Cirt (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see DIFF. How does that look ? — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
For the references, you could also do something like this:
{{reflist|30em|refs=
<ref name="foo">{{cite web|...}}</ref>
<ref name="bar">{{cite web|...}}</ref>
...
}}
– nyuszika7h (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: This is the sentence in the lead that I had an issue with: The Washington Post traced its usage "when it was used as a compliment" to its subsequent inclusion in debate with a negative connotation.[3] Personally, I'd suggest removing it completely because I think the main points from the WaPo source are already addressed in the lead and elaborated in the body. It's not supported by the source, so it needs to be removed or revised. Personally, I don't think that sentence contributes anything to the reader's understanding of the topic, nor does it impact the neutrality of the article in either direction. To me, it's purely superfluous and should just be removed. If there's a legitimate argument for why it's essential, then I'd suggest wording that's something like this,

The Washington Post gave examples of its earlier usage as a compliment and some recent examples from pop culture that illustrate the recent debate surrounding its negative connotation.

That's getting pretty wordy. It seems to me to be more a transitional/filler sentence that doesn't say anything new that isn't already expressed in another way, so WP:LessIsMore (that should be a thing). PermStrump(talk) 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done, please see DIFF. Directly implemented suggested sentence by Permstrump (talk · contribs), above. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SJW RPG

The first paragraph of the pop culture section talks about a parody role-playing game called Social Justice Warrior and it left me with a very different understanding of the game's premise than how I understood it after reading the source. I don't think this was intentional. I think it just makes too many assumptions about what the reader already knows. I'll try to explain how it sounds to someone that never heard of it before... I was reading about this video game assuming it was an example of SJW being used as an insult in pop culture since that's what the rest of this article is about and the discussion of the SJW video game never says otherwise. Keeping that in mind, read the article's current wording from that lens:

SJW wikipedia.org

In May 2014, the concept was incorporated into a parody role-playing video game titled Social Justice Warriors.[5][6] Developed by Nonadecimal Creative, Social Justice Warriors involved the concept of debating online against an Internet troll.[6] Users were able to select a character class; and gameplay involved changes to user meters of Sanity and Reputation.[6] The game became available on the computer platform Steam in February 2015.[7] Game creator Eric Ford explained the gameplay's logical extension over time: "Once you’ve embarked down the path of correcting every incorrect statement an anonymous stranger is making online, the only inevitable outcomes are that your patience is exhausted by frustration, your reputation is obliterated by the trolls’ defamation or your own actions, or you give up in disgust."[7] He said the motivation of the game was to foster critical thinking.[7]

To me, this sounds like it describes a game that makes fun of SJWs and equates them to internet trolls. I assumed the point of the game was to fight trolling SJWs and that its creator was trying to "foster critical thinking" by showing players that SJWs are disingenuous/closed-minded about their liberal philosophies or something like that. Imagine my surprise when I read in the source that the exact opposite is true. Here are so snippets:

SJW thinkprogress.org

From behind a keyboard, you take on the horde of racist, sexist trolls who turned the term ‘social justice warrior’ into an attack on anyone who advocates for better gender and racial politics in video games... You fight with trolls one-by-one, lowering their sanity and reputation with arguments and personal attacks, while trying to keep your own sanity and reputation from dropping too low and forcing you to log off. They attack with all-too-real troll arguments, things like “if he didn’t want to get shot, he shouldn’t have dressed like that.”... That’s when you start considering a personal attack. You’ve been sticking to reasoned arguments so far, but this troll clearly isn’t going to listen. You fling a personal attack, bringing the troll’s sanity and reputation way down, but it takes some of your reputation down with it. You don’t look good mud-slinging either, even when it’s for a good cause. That conflict, between wanting to take down the vile trolls at any cost, and preserving your own mental health and good name, is the one that animates Social Justice Warriors.... Ford says that temptation is purposeful. “There’s always a danger of things escalating into an us-vs-them conflict where disproving your opponent — winning — takes precedence over principles,”... While Ford has insisted the game isn’t pro- or anti-social justice warrior, his political sympathies are clear enough in the game. “We already ended racism like 40 years ago,” the troll says. “If you don’t think female privilege is real, you’re the real sexist.” They’re both laughably ridiculous, and sadly the kind of thing right wing trolls actually say. Your rebuttals are typically well-reasoned and sensible — at least until the trolls wear your sanity down. Despite Social Justice Warrior’s sense of futility for players, it isn’t “intended to suggest that racist, sexist, or other offensive comments shouldn’t be confronted online,” Ford said. The goal is to encourage critical thinking on how it can be done more effectively, and at less cost to the real-world social justice warriors.

Here's my suggested re-wording:

In May 2014, the concept was incorporated into a role-playing video game titled Social Justice Warriors.[5][6] Developed by Nonadecimal Creative, Social Justice Warriors has players take on the role of debating internet trolls who make racist and other provocative comments by choosing from different responses such as "'dismember their claims with your logic,' rebroadcast their message to be attacked by others, or go for the personal attack." Gameplay involves changes to user meters of Sanity and Reputation.[6] Game creator Eric Ford explained that the game isn’t “intended to suggest that racist, sexist, or other offensive comments shouldn’t be confronted online. The goal is to encourage critical thinking on how it can be done more effectively, and at less cost to the real-world social justice warriors."[7] The game became available on the computer platform Steam in February 2015.[7]

PermStrump(talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump:I made some modifications at DIFF. Why was the contraction "isn't" in your suggested wording, above? Did you copy that from the cited source itself ? — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: Looks good. I probably deleted more than I meant to from the original and misremembered the exact wording. It wasn't meant to be a correction. PermStrump(talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Permstrump:Thank you! I'm glad we're able to work together and come up with amiable solutions acceptable to all! Your polite and professional demeanor is most appreciated! :) — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Further reading section

Unless I'm mistaken the all of the items in the "Further reading" section are already in the citation list. Per MOS:FURTHER we typically don't duplicate items from the references list unless is is a very long reference list. I don't think it is though. Would there be consensus to remove the section? Or does anyone have any good reading material that isn't used as a source that could go there? — Strongjam (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam:I pulled out some references recommended to our readers as further reading and research on the general wider topic. Perhaps we could compromise and trim the Further reading sect down a tad bit? — Cirt (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
We can trim it if you like, but it's not required for my sake. I just noticed the duplication I thought it a bit odd. — Strongjam (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done, trimmed from 5 down to 3 entries, at DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made a couple changes, one to remove the accessdates which are only really needed on refs, and the other to cite web templates to avoid the generating duplicate anchor IDs in the HTML. — Strongjam (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks better, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Organization of references

@Cirt: Why have you been reorganizing the references like this? As far as I can tell, this makes them more time-consuming to find without providing any benefit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reformatting references in progress

Please bear with me.

Reformatting references in progress.

When it's done it will be quite easy to link between notes and references.

I will use model at Featured Article:

The General in His Labyrinth.

Please, have patience during ongoing reformatting process.

It will look much better soon.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth is a different situation, because it cites different pages of the same works, so short citations are helpful. Could you please explain what benefit they provide in an article like this one that never cites different pages of the same work? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  1. Organizes cites in one location.
  2. Models after WP:FA model The General in His Labyrinth.
  3. One coordinated place for reader to see cites.
  4. Cites will be organized in alphabetical order for future researchers.
  5. All cites will bluelink to the References sect.
  6. References sect can be printed out by future researchers in alphabetical order to consult for more info.

— Cirt (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Those seem like insignificant advantages to me, but I don't feel strongly one way or another. However, some of the links ("Technology Tell 2015", "Ohleiser 2015", "Hill 2014", and "Goldberg 2016") currently don't work—unless they can be fixed, this new format is a serious problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Granger please be patient. I will fix all the links, okay? — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: Done. All notes and references now working bluelinks, formatted per WP:FA model at The General in His Labyrinth, please see permalink. I checked every single bluelink note and they all now work just fine. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
We've had no further complaining so it looks like this quality improvement is successful. — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Language and Linguistics

Language and Linguistics WikiProjects are directly relevant as this is a form of jargon.

The WikiProjects should be restored.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Added back, per examples at Talk:Pejorative and Category talk:Pejorative terms for people and Category talk:Political neologisms. — Cirt (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is not about linguistics, a language, or a general feature of languages. If I understand your reasoning correctly, it would mean that every article about a word or phrase should be tagged with those two WikiProject banners, which is absurd. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussed in numerous sources within the context of fields linguistics, language, and languages. See examples at Talk:Pejorative and Category talk:Pejorative terms for people and Category talk:Political neologisms -- which already contain the WikiProjects. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Another example, at WP:FA page Talk:Truthiness. — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Quality-rated WP:GA examples include: Talk:Ain't, Talk:Arab street, Talk:Doge (meme), and Talk:Dump months. Oh, and also Talk:Have a nice day, — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Of those examples, the only ones that are similar enough to this article to be relevant are Talk:Dump months and Talk:Truthiness, IMO, and I think the WikiProject Linguistics banner is probably as inapplicable there as it is here. Neither of them has a WikiProject Languages banner. But I don't think it's worth arguing about, so I'll stop and leave the banners alone. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, because the entire article deals with the changing linguistic use of the term in language in society over time. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I could see removing the Languages WikiProject, as this is a bit too particular for that project, which deals with things at a higher level, i.e. focusing on actual language articles, parts of speech, etc. Linguistics makes sense though. —Torchiest talkedits 19:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done, per suggestion by Torchiest, kept {{WikiProject Linguistics}}. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring this article

To restore this article we need to rebuild it with valid sources. Here are a few to start us off:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonfraser (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2016

Requested move 6 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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


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

WP:TITLEFORMAT says to use sentence case, and WP:UCN doesn't say anything about how things are capitalized. I'm leaning towards weakly opposing the move request, although if the capitalization is used consistently in the sources for the article maybe it would make sense to follow that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a proper name, not noun. If it weren't, the common nouns in it could be rearranged without change of meaning. "warrior for social justice" is never used as a replacement for "Social Justice Warrior." It always defines a group or we ned to rewrite the article so that it's not a pejorative stereotype. --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WikiProject Women

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

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

Thank you,

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

You are entitled to your opinion. While social justice often concerns women's rights and SJWs often promote social justice, this topic is not directly related to women in general. SSTflyer 12:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:WikiProject Women, they state in their intro: "Welcome to WikiProject Women! We're a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. WikiProject Women brings Wikipedia users of all genders, sexual orientations, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of women's content across Wikipedia. Know that we warmly welcome you to participate in the project's scope, whether or not you are a project member." This indicates a wide project scope. Let's please keep this WikiProject listing on this talk page. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
While I would agree the article isn't only or even primarily about women, it does focus on that aspect often; "women's rights" is mentioned in literally the first sentence for example. This seems just as relevant to WikiProject Women as it does most of the other wikiprojects listed above. Sam Walton (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, Samwalton9, thank you. And also feminism is directly related to women, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Cirt on this. The tag belongs there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Headbomb, most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
So we now admit this topic is about social justice (did ya spot the clue in the title?) but still refuse to link here from Social justice? How bizarre. Equinox (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox:Better? — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The spooky Google Chrome extension

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

 Done, I've removed that material, per DIFF. @APerson:I admit I thought it would be nice to keep in the article, but unfortunately you're quite correct, best to wait and see if there's a greater preponderance of sourcing on that particular factoid. Thank you for your most polite and constructive feedback here on the talk page! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem, any time! APerson (talk!) 04:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reappropriation sect

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

Aw thanks m8! Brustopher (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Archived resolved threads

I've archived some resolved threads to focus on further quality improvement efforts.

These include for example move discussion since closed, discussions resolved with amicable resolutions to all parties involved, compromises with zero further complaints raised, etc.

Archived discussions to date may be seen at:

  1. Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 1
  2. Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 2

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

FAQ page might be needed soon

FAQ page might be needed soon for this talk page.

More info at Template:FAQ page.

Basically the purpose of this is to avoid tired and circular arguments previously historically raised in the past in talk page discussion -- or complaints that have zero basis in Wikipedia site policy.

Will examine this a bit further first.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • If you hear the same thing over and over and over again, that should tell you something. But no, you just ping your fellow SJW's and dismiss people with condescending quips and vague references to policy and wait until they give up. Rinse and repeat. All the while, keep adding as much POV pushing content as you can find to the article as you furiously Google for random blog posts that you call reliable sources, so long as they push your narrative. This article is a disgrace. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:4839:63B:503E:BC27 (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:NPA. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:IAR. That's exactly what I meant. You cite some stupid policy as a means of dismissing everything I said. I didn't make any personal attacks. Read this article. An SJW is a wonderful thing to be! It was a compliment! 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:4839:63B:503E:BC27 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 (talk)

Women in society????

how this article in any way under the umbrella of women in society or feminism? so this is their view of the term? how is that encyclopedic?

the person who alone has written the current version of the article entirely: [name redacted because editor Nyuszika7h believes it is a personal attack otherwise to criticize someone breaking the rules] is a third-wave feminist if you look through his/her history so obviously it's made from an unneutral point of view?

there was talk here before of this article not being related to "women in society" templates and the two who appeared to support the editor were third-wave feminists as well as can be judged from their histories and the two who opposed had no real history in gender-related articles

is this third wave feminism pedia? why is this kind of behavior just looked through the fingers? this is a serious credibility problem

why is this article not tagged with POV even though people are constantly fighting over it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellusean (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to add pov tag but it was reverted Tellusean (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the feminists on here are pretty set on the article being from a particular point of view. I also agree that this article is pretty NPOV, as I stated above in the talk page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article makes it rather clear that the primary targets of the term are third-wave and intersectional feminists. It's not exclusively them, but it's a central theme to the term, esp. wrt gamergate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Fixed spelling. Should not the article be tagged with some sort of a "from this viewpoint" tag? Tellusean (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What exactly in the article is not presented in a neutral point of view? As far as I can see, the lead summarizes the topic and the article explains it. Many POV statements are attributed to their authors and not said in Wikipedia's voice. Just because an article has a content dispute doesn't mean it needs a POV tag necessarily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If the entire article was written like the lede is, i wouldn't dispute the POV, i think the lede is fairly NPOV. On topic for this subject, the "women in society" box is quite inappropriate. Although the use of the term has been aimed at feminists quite a bit, SJW is also commonly used against groups like Black lives matter, which don't really relate to "women in society". This article hasn't yet been expanded to include the BLM use of the term and needs improvement in that aspect as well.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing excessive quotes

In an effort to address the POV of the article (which reads as a laundry list of quotes from feminists), I have removed some of the quotations, specifically where the person quoted was not notable in their own right.

I will be searching for some quotes from the other side of this; surely Milo Yiannopoulos, or Christina Hoff Sommers, and/or other notable people in the anti-SJW crowd deserve a mention in the article all about the term (after all, these are the people popularising the term are they not?). Without this crucial other side of the debate, it is difficult to say that the article is NPOV, and I think this is the crux of the reason why so many users on this talk page have been voicing their vocal disapproval of the current state of the article.

Currently we have refs from two perspectives in the article; we have a neutral perspective (the oxford dictionary resources), and we also have plenty of feminist sources, but almost nothing originating from the anti-SJW community. As a result, until material from the other perspective is added, an NPOV tag is necessary.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Overall the article simply uses excessive use of quotes in general. Many of the quotes in the article should be shortened to a single statement with a ref. I'll try to slowly work my way through it, but it is going to take a while. Significant portions of the article have clearly been written by feminist academics, and the article requires significant copy editing to bring the tone to a more encyclopaedic level.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I have largely finished copy editing the article to remove excessive quotations. The article still clearly needs a section on the views of the anti-SJW crowd (notable members).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

""Social justice warrior" is a pejorative term for someone expressing socially progressive views"

How accurate is it to say that someone would be labelled a SJW only for "expressing socially progressive views"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly accurate. How else do you think somebody might be labelled an SJW? Do we include non sequitur uses? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This answer itself is a non-sequitur. If someone expressed the progressive view "I think people of all races should have equal rights and opportunities", how likely is it they would be labelled a SJW? Virtually nil. A key something is missing from the definition. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what an SJW 'is'. It's how the term is used. Yes, some people would call you an SJW for making that statement. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
What a load of gibberish. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I suspect you haven't been on the internet much. Regardless, our text reflects our sources coverage. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This can't seriously be your answer. Are you going to take the question seriously, or will only an RfC solve this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
What key 'something' do you think is missing? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's why I opened a discussion, isn't it? The given definition is clearly totally inadequate—a SJW is not anyone (or even any significant percentage of the population) who "express[es] socially progressive views". The definition, as it is, is easily falsified. Sources like this one (literally the first I found) contradict your assertion that the "text reflects our sources coverage". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm having trouble getting the point you're driving at. You believe the current description is unsufficient, sure. How do you think it would be improved? What proposed description would you use? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you're having trouble with: "Social Justice Warrior" absolutely does not mean "someone expressing socially progressive views", and doesn't appear to be backed up by the sources, either: the first one describes it as "an insult against progressive activists", which appears to be more in line with what most other sources have. Even if sources were cited with that ridiculous definition, it would still be unacceptable for the reasons I've already provided. The term doesn't appear to be limited to "activists", though. Do we have any other suggestions? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I've rephrased the definition slightly, and I think it now matches the cited sources pretty closely—the Ohlheiser source says "a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views", the Cohen source says "someone who advocates equal rights for women and minorities", and the Rozsa source says "progressive activists". The article now says "someone promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights and civil rights", which I think is a decent summary of those three definitions. I wouldn't object to including the word "activist", though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
How about "a pejorative term for activists promoting socially progressive views"? That would narrow the meaning down from the generic "someone" and make it closer to the commonly understood meaning. Diego (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Commonly understood according to who, you? We use reliable sources here at Wikipedia. You can go write whatever you want on your Tumblr. The sources are clear that it's not a term for activists. The recipient is not what matters, it's the person who is calling them an SJW. They decide whether or not they want to use the label. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Granger's edit is better, I think—I don't think usage is restricted to "activists". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the key difference is in the vocalness of the expression of socially progressive views. Very vocal social progressives (also those who demand change) are likely to be labeled SJWs, people who merely express their views are not.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warrior doesn't refer to people who have socially progressive views. It refers to people who aggressively pursue them at the expense of those who disagree with them, IE censorship, harassment, and scare tactics. Those are what social justice warriors are. GorthaurTheCruel3019 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Insertcleverphrasehere's suggestion that being vocal somehow correlates with being called a SJW. I'd also like to point out that what I think Curly Turkey was going for was that not only expressing socially progressive views, but expressing extreme socially progressive views may also result in being called a SJW. I can't think of how to put that together, though. Maybe another way to phrase "extreme socially progressive views"? APerson (talk!) 18:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I doubt the views have to be "extreme", but the simple expression of socially progressive views alone are unlikely to get a person labeled an SJW. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirected SJW

I redirected the SJW dab page to this page (and moved the dab page to SJW (disambiguation), per page view statistics that indicate that this is the overwhelming primary topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

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

It appears above claims by this user are not backed up by sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Further, the language chosen by the above complainant in order to complain quote; "This article makes it seem that all social justice warriors are saints persecuted by heathen misogynist trolls." -- appears to betray that particular user's POV about the subject matter. My belief is this article should reflect reliable secondary sources on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with EvergreenFir, thank you. The complainant user has again refused to engage in talk page discussion. I note I've attributed the source directly to the person who said it themselves. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As someone who is socially progressive myself and has no time for sexism, racism or any similar prejudices, nevertheless I agree with the first person - this article is strongly biased. The narrative of this article is more or less what the first complainant stated. In actual fact, while it's true that SJW is sometimes used to slur anyone advocating progressive views, it's not the only use. The term covers a spectrum, with some people reserving its usage for those who advocate extreme positions, e.g. the idea that a white guy dressing up in a Mariachi costume on Halloween is 'cultural appropriation that mocks a marginalized, oppressed ethnic group purely for the amusement of priviledged white people'. We've all seen this kind of mindset expressing itself around the net, so don't pretend it doesn't exist. 95.149.93.114 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
IP above makes good points. I also noticed a disturbing slant in the way the article is focused on and written from one particular point of view.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Having read the article it seems to include a lot of definitions of the term, which are in agreement with what the IP is saying. So I'm not seeing the issue at all. Brustopher (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree with EvergreenFir and Brustopher. Above complainants have failed to present reliable secondary sources to back up their spurious arguments. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The only thing spurious is the claim that this article is neutral and not camped on by a bunch of SJW's who think they own it and that Wikipedia is an appropriate place for them to push their POV. Take it to tumblr. This is an encyclopedia. 172.6.238.220 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia.[citation needed] clpo13(talk) 04:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any reliable sources that have examined this article and said that it's not neutral. Do you have a reliable source that says it is? 172.6.238.220 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused...we need to have reliable secondary sources in order to be correct about something on a talk page now? I thought it was just that you couldn't add something to the article without sources. No, I can't point you to a page in a book to back me up, but that doesn't mean that I don't agree with above somewhat. As the lady says on the bottom of the page: 

 "Any outspoken feminist will likely tell you that it all sometimes feel thankless. Even in this supposedly progressive age, calling people out for their racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist or homophobic remarks and actions often results in being made into a pariah – you're humourless, too PC, a 'social justice warrior' "

Hit the nail on the head. That's exactly correct lady; people get sick of having innocent remarks jumped on by people who make them out to be evil scum for plying our micro-aggressions on marginalized and disenfranchised blah-blah-blah.... Yes, you ARE too humorless and too PC, and no, most people don't find your company pleasant, nor do we thank you for your constant efforts to show us our failings and re-educate us to meet your standards of correctness. Whether you're right or not, people don't like to hear it all the time, and aren't going to thank you for your services. I don't mind some discussion on the subject. I don't mind being educated (I'm curious now to know just what the hell being "ableist" is...presumably you're prejudiced against people who aren't able to do things??). But I don't like hearing about it constantly, and I don't like being militantly attacked. That's what a "social justice warrior" is too me: someone who never shuts up, who takes the whole thing far too seriously, and constantly attacks everyone who doesn't conform to their views (and in many cases just does it kind of as a hobby, not because they actually care about it). It's interesting, I was just reading this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/outside-the-socialjustice-movements-small-tent/479049/) earlier about a teenager who moved away from social justice groups because they were too intolerant, and they advocate complete censorship of anyone who doesn't agree with their views. There is absolutely no room for dissent from the "correct" thought, anyone who deviates or wavers in the slightest is cast out as a pariah and enemy to progress, or a "bad ally". Maybe for some people "social justice warrior" is a term that covers anyone who's a feminist, but the emphasis I've always picked up is that it mostly focuses on people who are ridiculously politically correct all the time, who see everything in a negative light, and who make everyone else miserable because of it. It seem to me that this article is basically suggesting that anyone who uses the term "SJW" is most likely a misogynistic prick who is just using the term as a blanket indictment for all anyone who shows slight indications of feminist values. I think it's more likely a person that is simply sick of all the ridiculous excess in PC culture, whoever it's from (although that varies with the context and the person). AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for improving the article (which means bringing reliable sources), not for going off on what SJW means to you. clpo13(talk) 04:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
There was a reliable source just removed. The Washington Post. Some SJW removed it because it was quoting a reddit user. Said being quoted in the Washington Post doesn't count as a reliable source. What was the quote? It told the other side of the story. Why people actually use the term. As told by somebody who uses it. Not as told by SJW's. That would bring some much needed neutrality to this horribly biased article. But nope. Remove it. Doesn't fit POV we are pushing here.2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:4839:63B:503E:BC27 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Which source was that exactly? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably the WaPo source that was just removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.39.62 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You're going to have to be more specific than that. I'm not going to go hunting through the revision history to look. clpo13(talk) 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice_warrior&diff=716772456&oldid=716637593 172.6.238.220 (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
First, that's not the WaPo; that's MTV. Second, why should some random Reddit user's opinion be included when the sentences immediately prior quote an expert saying something similar? I can go on Reddit and say "Hitler did nothing wrong" and have some entertainment news outlet quote me on it, but that doesn't mean Hitler actually did nothing wrong. clpo13(talk) 01:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about politics one way or the other, but it's very amusing that many editors are claiming this article is "neutral", but when someone disagrees, they immediately assume it's because of ideological bias or disagreement. The article is clearly written in favor of those it speaks of and the bias is overwhelming. By your own logic, you've got it this way for your own ideological biases.GorthaurTheCruel3019 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate the lack of neutrality, not just assert it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As i have said elsewhere on this talk page, until material is added from the anti-SJW crowd (Milo, Christina HS etc), this article will remain biased in favour of a particular POV due to the overabundance of feminist sources used in the article (even after the removal of a ton of quotes from non-notables).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
My reading of it agrees: neutrality leaves something to be desired; a section on the history that notes what the opposition claims about the topic would be useful, as many will read this article and think that the things it criticizes don't seem so bad, and thus wonder what all the fuss is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hppavilion1 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions on sources to look at? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As I have said, Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers are two very prominent anti-feminists that have helped to popularise the term. Citations to Milo's speeches, and Christina HS work could easily be used to create a section like 'Use in the Antifeminist movement'  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources with alternate point of view

As multiple users have pointed out, the article reads with a specific point of view that looks at the term with a favorable lens; and labels all the derogatory use of it as fear-mongering, bigotry and misogyny. In reality, the term has been used appropriately to call out bullying behavior and unreasonable demands of student protesters on college campuses in the U.S. It is one thing to promote socially progressive views, it is a whole another to tell people they can't have certain hairstyles or wear certain clothes because it is cultural appropriation, or to censor opposing points of view, or to tell college faculties that their job is to make the students comfortable rather than educating them and challenging them intellectually. I will provide some sources that view the term with more nuance and provide reasoning on why the derogatory use of it is justified in many cases. The term can qualify as a Neologism, which has it's own guidelines. It has to be covered by the secondary sources. This is not an exhaustive list by any measure, but just a sample of reliable sources that do cover the term as a secondary source and point to it's derogatory use with some justification.

Heard of a white person doing public service in Africa? Quickly diagnose a case of white savior complex. Does a student like the music, culture, and customs of another nation? Call cultural appropriation. Know of any group that doesn’t mirror America’s demographic distribution exactly? Decry the institution as systemically oppressive. Too much of what I read and see is exactly this kind of unthinking rejection, one that emerges from a philosophy of activism for activism’s sake. On campuses, this often takes the form of student activists seeking out any evidence of real, nationally salient injustices on their own campuses, seizing on—and often misrepresenting—any shred that they may find, and presenting this as evidence of a pervasive, all-encompassing system of oppression.

– http://www.thecrimson.com/column/words-words-words/article/2015/3/12/simplistic-social-justice-warrior/


Have the social justice warriors of 2015 supported some worthy causes? Sure. But much of their passion goes into speech and culture policing directed at victimless crimes that violate their moral taboos.

– http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/


While “social justice” discourse embraces “intersectionality”—the understanding that different forms of social advantage and disadvantage interact with each other—this virtually never works in favor of the “privileged.” Thus, intersectionality may mean recognizing that disabled battered women suffer from both sexism and “ableism.” Recognizing that disabled men may be at greater risk for spousal abuse because disability reverses the usual male advantage in strength? Not so much. To acknowledge advantages enjoyed by the “oppressed”—for instance, gender bias favoring female defendants in criminal cases or mothers in custody suits—is pure heresy. The only moral dilemma is which oppressed identity trumps which: race or gender, sexuality or religion.

– http://observer.com/2015/06/the-pecking-disorder-social-justice-warriors-gone-wild/


Anaverageguy (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

These sources seem like a very good start in expanding the article and addressing the NPOV issues.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The last thing needed is more opinions from opinion pieces. That's why the article is as bad as it is, we should be moving away from dross POV opinions back to factual statements. Koncorde (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The topic is an opinion piece... what do you expect? At the very least we can have balanced coverage.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The topic is a phrase we can (and used to only a couple of months ago) cover with only factual statements (prior to the bloat into this faux op ed piece). Koncorde (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are fine, but should be attributed. The lead needs to summarize the article and opinions like this don't belong there. If we need to de-source the lead, then let's do that. Not add more opinions in Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Fine... I'll take out all the opinions that are currently in the article... we should at least be left with the oxford dictionary source. Perhaps we can make it a wiktionary entry? In all seriousness, on a topic like this nearly all the sources are the author's opinions. As long as it is published in a reputable source, with appropriate editorial oversight, I don't see a problem with inclusion as long as the coverage is balanced, the problem with this article is that the coverage was never balanced.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a case of all opinions are bad, or not constructive, it's a case of the article being a repository for anyone with an opinion on the internet making even a passing reference to the idea of an SJW. Bear in mind how succinct this article used to be. What was added should have enhanced the encyclopedic structure, not just provided pop-culture sound-bites. Koncorde (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing in this article

I'm not sure who started referencing this article using the note style that it currently uses for the majority of its references, but is awful and bad for readers. Readers cannot link directly to sources by hovering over links, The notes are difficult to follow directly to their reference and when removing refs from the article it leaves the orphan refs in the list of references at the bottom and only removes the note linking to it, leading to references in the ref list that aren't actually used in the article.

I am not certain if this 'note' style of referencing is used in other articles (I haven't seen it before) but I am fairly sure that it does not follow the guideline outlined in Wikipedia:Citing_sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

EDIT, having read the citation guideline closely, it seems that this article uses the short citation style, but uses it incorrectly. The short citation style is meant to be used so that page numbers can be used for individual mentions to specific references. As none of the short citations in this article actually use page numbers, I suggest that we either A) reformat the citations to the standard style (this helps readers), or B) give the page numbers for the citations. Note that many of the short citations used in the article link to web citations, which should not generally be used for short citations (short citations are generally used only for in print books or journal articles).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Untrue—the style is commonly used in such a way, and is particularly apporpriate for works that cite both paginated and unpaginated works. This allows all cited materials to be listed in a section such as "Works cited" instead of dividing cited works into different sections based merely on whether they are paginated. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok fair enough, but none of the citation notes actually use page numbers, so it is still being used incorrectly and is unnecessary.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It may be unnecessary, but it's not incorrect, and has the advantage of keeping the sources alphabetized instead of scattered. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Except most of the sources are being mentioned in the article based on what they appeared in (The Washington Post, Vice, etc), rather than being important due to their author. Alphabetisation of authors without listing the source makes it harder for readers to find sources for this article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a fixable problem. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
How, and can we please do it? Currently the referencing in this article seems very clunky.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, first find out if the authors of the article you talk about are anonymous. If they're not, then fix those refs by adding the names, etc. If they're anonymous, you can set the author to "Anonymous" or "XXX Publication staff" or something (I usually do the latter). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the standard citation style is better for this article, as I indicated in Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 2#Organization of references when Cirt was switching the article to the current style. I would support a change back to the standard citation style. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have completed changing the ref style back to standard, and as i suspected there were quite a few orphan refs in the reflist that were not used anywhere in the article:

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This article reads like an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry

There is a lot of jargon and niche information here. This article reads like an inside joke. Cainxinth (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any particular parts that you could point to that need addressing? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't know where to start. It has drifted so far into cruft'iness that it's basically now just a repository of people who have ever mentioned those 3 words in conjunction. I can't wait for feminism to have an "in popular culture" section where we can mention Bill Maher has said that word too. Koncorde (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
If you can believe it, I recently cut out about a 3rd of the article which was far worse cruft than the stuff that is left.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I can believe it, I abandoned the article when it got railroaded into its behemoth form by a single user. I have no idea why the editor felt the need to direct quote dozens of people about the same subject. Anyway, hopefully it can be culled back on topic (which was about SJW the neologism and pejorative) rather than this synthetic article trying to argue that it's all conjoined). Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Koncorde The issues you speak of should largely be fixed now. Let me know if you have any suggestions for further improvement.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

There are several issues with the citations in the lead. First, "civil rights" is currently attributed to the Eric Johnson source, but that source does not mention civil rights activism at all. Second, "multiculturalism" is attributed to the Washington Post source, which mentions "a 2007 anti-multiculturalism editorial" that used the term "social justice warrior", but it doesn't actually say that the term was used to refer to activists for multiculturalism. And third, "identity politics" is attributed to two sources—the one in English uses the term "identity politics", but doesn't say that it has anything to do with how people use the term "social justice warrior". I don't speak Dutch, but based on what I can figure out using Google Translate, the Dutch source does not seem to be a reliable source, and I can't find anything that looks like a mention of identity politics. @Insertcleverphrasehere: Do you disagree with what I've said here? If not, the referencing in the lead needs to be reworked significantly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Um... I'm pretty sure you added the eric johnson ref to the lede, it just ended up in the wrong place after one of us shuffled stuff around (it might have been me, can't be bothered checking), I moved it back to 'feminism'. In any case the washington post article clearly talks about civil rights quite a bit. We can remove Identity politics if you like, although there are plenty of sources that compare them, they just happen to be opinion pieces such as this one in Rolling Stone, and it seems a waste not to get the chance to link to the other article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Trying to find unbiased sources for this article is like looking for the calm one in a fight between a mongoose and a rattlesnake. There are plenty of articles that say that advocates of multiculturalism, identity politics, etc have been called 'social justice warriors' but invariably they are sources like Salon or The Rebel. If we are hearing the same thing from both sides of the bias fence can we cut the difference? I don't know. In any case, the lede sentence now appears to be true, even if we can't find the perfect sources right now. I've added citation needed tags for multiculturalism and Identity politics for now and i'll do some more digging later.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it looks quite a bit better now. I know what you mean about the difficulty of finding neutral sources—I've encountered the same problem before when editing articles about these kinds of highly charged popular culture topics. The Rolling Stone piece looks fine to me. If it is an opinion piece, it's not stating much of an opinion—it's mostly composed of quotes and straightforward factual statements. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
On a wider note, I saw that the MTV article is stating Gandhi and MLK were both lauded as social justice warriors, but I can't actually find any such sources or references to anyone saying such a thing (I don't deny that they are great activists for social justice, but the term "social justice warrior" is so obscure that I find this incredibly unlikely). I don't want to denigrate the quality of MTV News, but it has never struck me as a reliable source (although happy to be proven wrong) for such a biographical claim. Minor thing, just seems odd. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah thats a bit odd, i just looked myself and could't find anything that wasn't traced back to the MTV article, Although it is important to note that if it is true the sources likely are in print only, and might not exist online. I added a dubious tag to the source.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I've added a 2001 reference that supports the claim, and removed the dubious tag. I suspect that reference is the one that was used by MTV to make their claim, as it quotes the same two persons as SJWs. Diego (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Diego. Koncorde (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Good work Diego! Not an easy source to find.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The source was already in use in an earlier version of social justice. It's not the best quality of references, but IMO it's enough to show that the term "social justice warrior" existed before with a more positive connotation, in special now that it has been validated by a mainstream source. Diego (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the source Diego added. It explicitly says that it should not be cited without the authors' permission. It's been removed for that reason before. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted contacting him? I can see he has a Linkedin profile, but I don't have the premium version to send an inmail but I will attempt to get a response and it seems strange to be quoting MTV about an opinion expressed in a paper we cannot directly refer to. Koncorde (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
How can someone deny permission to cite something? They aren't lawmakers. Equinox ◑ 19:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiculturalism

Since there is no citation for 'multiculturalism' in the lede and since original research is evidently trying to be removed, I suggest that be removed. It smells a lot like original research to me. I don't see it mentioned in any of the sources. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:D933:98A:A038:1157 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Small obvious change

Where it says "The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice" it should say "The phrase originated in the XXI century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul lapeira (talk • contribs) 11:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. According to the source, The Washington Post, "more than 20 years ago, the term was generally used as a neutral or even complimentary describer." The newspaper article cites examples from 1991 and 1992, which were definitely in the late 20th century, not the 21st century. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, no Roman numerals per MOS:CENTURY. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Today, a new sentence was added to the article:

In mid 2016, some conservative outlets described Donald Trump and his supporters as "conservative social justice warriors".[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Miller, Stephen. "Donald Trump: Social-Justice Warrior". nationalreview.com. National Review. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  2. ^ Greer, Scott. "Trump Has Turned Conservatives Into Social Justice Warriors". dailycaller.com/. The Daily Caller. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  3. ^ Payne, Daniel. "3 Reasons Donald Trump Is A Social Justice Warrior". thefederalist.com. The Federalist. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  4. ^ Dreher, Rod. "Donald Trump, Social Justice Warrior?". theamericanconservative.com. The American Conservative. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  5. ^ Brown, Elizabeth. "Trump Fans and 'Social Justice Warriors,' Two Sides of the Same Authoritarian Coin". reason.com. Reason. Retrieved 16 August 2016.
  6. ^ Caruso, Jay. "Brad Thor/Glenn Beck Flap Reveals Trump Supporters To Be Social Justice Warriors". redstate.com. Redstate. Retrieved 16 August 2016.

The problem is that not one of the sources appears to use the phrase "conservative social justice warriors" to refer to Trump or his supporters. Admittedly, I didn't read them very carefully, but I don't think any of the sources consider Trump or his supporters to be conservatives—simply "social justice warriors"—in a perverted sense of "an insult that means whatever we want it to mean", the way "liberal" was robbed of its meaning 30 years ago. Unless somebody can more accurately summarize what the sources are actually saying about Trump, his supporters, and "social justice warriors", I propose removing the sentence from the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Methinks you haven't even read the titles of the articles. Could they be any clearer? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Methinks you haven't read anything but the titles, which are typically added by an editor, not by the author. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Methinks you haven't kept in mind that the titles are still part of the articles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if they were somehow added completely without any input from the original writers (and since editors can also change the articles themselves, the appeal to editors is a red herring), the quotations that are now in the article speak for themselves. "Social justice warrior", "social justice" and "politically correct" are in fact used as insults that mean whatever and whomever pundits want them to mean. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality and defining characteristics

I noticed that a large portion of this article seems slanted either in favor or against the use of the term SJW depending on which sentence is being read. It looks like a small war is taking place in the talk section above, so I assume the content of this article wont be improving any time soon. If there are more neutral parties available that can help provide content for this article without injecting in their personal views on the subject matter it would be extremely helpful for outside readers.

(Note: This is may sound controversial, so I'm attempting to phrase as concisely as possible while keeping my own opinions out of it. I don't expect to succeed, but I'll try.) Additionally, from what I have heard about "SJW's" online, a big complaint that people have towards disingenuous left-leaning progressivism that many, if not all SJW's follow, is the subversive nature that many of their actions create. That is, if a group of SJW's are pushing for a bill to be made to treat blacks different from other ethnic groups, that SJW's completely fail to acknowledge that encouraging laws based on color is racist, even if those laws are racist in favor of blacks. The anger from people against SJW's is that they feel SJW's attempt to keep different ethnic groups and cultures divided as ever, but under false pretenses. I'm also reminded of the white savior narrative in relation to SJW's needing to "save" whatever special interest group of the month is on the National Stage.

This is all to say that, there are complaints that SJW's are in fact for the status quo in very much the same way racists of earlier generations were, but are unwilling to reconsider their opinions on the matter because of their indoctrinated extremist views. Much of the article seems to revolve around whether the actions SJW's commit is "genuine" or not, and whether or not there are ulterior motives to rallies and protests that SJW's might attend. My concern is that this does not properly or fully define why so many view SJW's in a negative way. Sawta (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This; "a big complaint that people have towards disingenuous left-leaning progressivism that many, if not all SJW's follow" is an accusation, and a claim, not a fact. For 3 paragraphs not about your opinion, there was an awful lot of your opinion. Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The main reason why sections based on different sources are so polarised is because the sources themselves are very polarised. Very few sources on SJWs are not extremely biased one way or the other. The only solution to this problem so far has been to try to maintain a balanced selection of sources, rather than use unbiased sources (which largely don't exist).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the validity of an article on SJWs (this article) is being debated by a group of SJEs.(Social Justice Editor Warriors) Something in my gut tells me this activity doesn't comport with Wikipedia standards. Snit333 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snit333 to what are you referring? and how does it relate to this 5 month old thread?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I retract my previous remark. - Unfortunately, this article DOES comport with current Wikipedia standards. Snit333 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

South Park

The article should mention how South Park did a parody of Social Justice Warriors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunning_and_Brave100.34.34.94 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is necessary since South Park basically has parodied every topical issue,--64.229.167.158 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Have they parodied W. Bush, Donald Trump, or Toby Keith? They tend to parody leftists.199.119.232.214 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, yes, and pretty much. South park parodies everyone.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


I don't believe this article is neutral enough

There are two opposing points of view, that Social Justice Warrior is just a stereotype used by people to dismiss bigotry, and that Social Justice Warriors truly exist and they're main characteristic is trying to censor things that are not seen as politically correct. While I, personally, believe the first view is closer to the truth, i find it bad how this article only really shows the first point of view. On controversial subjects such as this, usually both sides are shown, such as in the Mansplaining article. I am not trying to argue which side is right, all i am trying to say is that both sides should be shown.

for example this article, coming from a moderate progressive, argues that social justice warriors are a real phenomenon. I'm sure there are a lot more of articles like this. --2A02:2F0B:B0D7:E600:BC49:1884:9D8D:345C (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If I am correct in examining your position, you believe that this article is too focused on the pejorative definition, and would like some focus on the 'social justice warrior' as an actual group of people, and the actions of that group?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead lists the socially progressive definition, which stems from one source. There are sources defining it as the overzealous kind but these have been removed. And even the ones we have describe it as overzealous kind less specifically. Then we have the litany describing what else. This litany doesn't even belong in the lead. It's listing all the ways it has been used at least ONCE. They are badly sourced and aren't linked with the socially progressive definition unlike the sentence seemingly states. 93.106.5.228 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Dictionary Definition is literally "A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views" and the Washington Post article is the most reliable source used in the entire article. All the referred to views are also quite validly sourced, however, just to be clear - a lede does not require a source when the body of the article deals with the the content. Koncorde (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
That definition wasn't the matter. It was the litany of definitions. They are very badly and vaguely sourced. The opinion piece sources may use the word in a completely different context ONE TIME and that's enough for you? We have the dictionary definition which is cited by multiple sources. You haven't addressed any of this. 93.106.5.228 (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
These other uses are all part of a larger umbrella of progressive politics. However, 'progressive' is very ill-defined and these additional terms help define what kind of 'progressivism' the dictionary definition is using. The term is actually quite a large and very broad political movement, and there are various different kinds of progressives. The additional links to these other pages specify what branches of 'progressivism' are likely to be accused of being SJWs. In particular, those focused on political correctness, modern western feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
There is no litany of definitions, there is a definition, and then (as said above) we provide examples of what "socially progressive" is outlined to be in the many sources, including that first one. Koncorde (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That is EXACTLY the problem. Both of you link the litany of other definitions with the main definition, but they aren't related. The source which uses the main definition doesn't use the others. The others' sources don't use the main definition. And you both proved people think they are proven by the same sources even though they aren't. It is original research currently. It absolutely is. I think the original research tag is even better. 188.238.211.219 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
It isn't OR. I think you are arguing that it is WP:SYNTH, but it isn't, because the sources used and linked clearly refer to SJWs being involved in feminism, civil rights, identity politics, etc. Exactly as used in the lede.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you read any of what I wrote? Just look at the sources. There is only one actual definition in them. Other than that it's like stating that vegans are against billionaires because an article stated that vegans are against the billionaire named Bob. The use of the sources makes no sense. To top it all of they're all opinion pieces, mere blog posts. 93.106.208.2 (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I can safely vouch I read everything that you wrote, but that it had next to no meaning. We still do not need to cite everything in the lede. The fact that it is cited in the lede does not indicate that only those sources cover the subject. Koncorde (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Not everything needs to be cited!? What in the seven blazes am I reading? Is anyone else seeing this. Koncorde just admitted it's original research and synth? 93.106.208.2 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There are special rules for the lede of an article. please see WP:LEDE.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
There aren't any that say you can make stuff up with original research and synth. If needs to be cited somewhere. 93.106.208.2 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It is; in the body of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I've already explained above why it is not WP:SYNTH.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You haven't explained. Where in the body is it? Point it out? Add that ref to the corresponding bit in the lead? 188.238.193.145 (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
You still haven't managed an iota of sense. If we could understand what you are actually angling at maybe someone could even engage with you. For instance you keep moving the WaPo article as if that somehow changes anything, even though the large extent of the article is about Gamergate and its victims (who, largely, are Feminist) and of whom the most singular example (Sarkeesian) has a website / video / youtube built around "Feminist Frequency". You say "You're not even participating at talk" but multiple editors have reverted your changes - consensus is against you - and clearly, per above, I have contributed and it is you that is trying to change the article in the face of multiple editors saying that it makes no sense what you are doing. You then use this "Because vegans dislike billionaire Bob all vegans hate all billionaires" - the answer is "no". But because SJW is associated with Gamergate and Gamergate has exhibited its vitriol largely against anyone with progressive views (or who just disagrees with them) and Sarkeesian is a fine example of such an individual, it is not great leap to use the WaPo article as evidence that the pejorative SJW is targeted at feminists. Your edits don't even remove the word "feminist" from the lead, so I can't even work out what you believe the point is that you are making.
Also, technically, our citation format is completely wrong and all citations should be at the end of the sentence, which would fuck up any changes that you make. It is currently cited at a word level only because of the relative tenuous blog articles depended upon. However, as a pop-culture phrase this is largely all that is required for an otherwise uncontroversial claim by the author. Koncorde (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look above, other people have complained of the same thing, vague citating in ths lead. The reason it hasn't largely changed is because the active editors of the article, like you mentioned, are hesitant to change anything. And I don't completely follow the other things you write and it sounds like sort of original research. I asked for citations, not more original research. My point was that some bits are synth, like the other editor clarified for me. Sadly there is no synth tag template but only OR template. 188.238.193.145 (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look above, you'll see discussion of the lede that resulted in multiple changes to the lede, particularly the sentence you are complaining about. All these changes in the last few weeks. look in the page history, the lede has changed quite a lot recently. Any claim that we are "hesitant to change anything" is totally without merit.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The entire article was wholesale changed by one editor a few months ago into some rambling quote marathon. Since then it has largely been reverted to something more normal, but even now it is subject to change. What is resisted or that we 'hesitate' around is unexplained change.
Personally I would revert it back to April and add in the few meritorious references used in Pop culture.Koncorde (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you trying to introduce even MORE synth? Because when I think of something other than quotes I think of, well, synth and original research. 188.238.187.91 (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have neither the time, nor inclination to explain the many ways that you don't understand wikipedia. You are either a WP:DUCK or you need to research the principles of article writing (which, for instance, doesn't involve an article being 100% quotes). Koncorde (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Not having time or the inclination to explain why isn't exactly going to win anyone over... 188.238.43.183 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We, by which I mean everybody else, appears to be won over. There is only you peddling some esoteric changes. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Me", by which you must mean me plus the many others above who've just gotten tired of fighting? 188.238.43.183 (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a forum, Suggest changes and actual policy based reasons for those changes or take your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude elsewhere.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  17:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I did. The response was to check the body. I did and asked where, specifically. Still waiting. 91.159.203.35 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the key problem with the term "social justice warrior" is that it is inherently subjective, and this is obvious from the definition given. Everybody thinks their ideological opponents are "unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased and self-aggrandizing", regardless of whether these opponents are leftist, liberal, far-right, conservative or libertarian.
The term "social justice warrior" refers to the concept of social justice. Of course, this concept is every bit as contested, because everybody – except the most brazen far-right activist – claims that they champion social justice (because openly espousing the opposite has increasingly become seen as reactionary and "un-PC", i. e., a generally acknowledged Bad Thing), but when people like Trump and his supporters are identified with the concept "social justice warrior" and thus indirectly (and even directly) with the concept of social justice, I get the impression that both have been stretched far beyond their breaking point. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since you wrote yourself that "The term "social justice warrior" refers to the concept of social justice. Of course, this concept is every bit as contested" you should probably add that to the article. Because now it states that people who use SJW term in derogatory fashion do it to mark someone for lack of conviction. But in reality there are those who criticise SJW because they promote social justice like some universal and undisputed concept, that it's not.
Also, I don't actually see 'right' sources in this article, only 'progressive' ones (and I specifically use quote marks here). --193.151.224.4 (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, wow. If "Trump is in fact the most politically correct candidate", this only proves, once again, that "politically correct", too, means precisely nothing in particular. Evidently, left is right and black is white to conservatives, minarchists and ancaps ("Nazis were socialists, so they were left-wing! Checkmate, liberals!"). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


https://www.facebook.com/groups/antisjw/ This is a FB page to a group that is "left" in nature. This is a neologism and might not be easy to define. wikipedia doesn't seem to handle neologisms well. The word is also used by people on the left. This article gives the impression only people on the right uses this term to degrade progressives. As time goes on this term will be used by a variety of people and this article will be dated. 47.20.9.43 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources are confusing because people in general are idiots. Is this something new? I think not. Still we fallow what has been published in reliable sources, to the best of our ability.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors do not represent the Millennials

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is no evidence that the majority of Millennials want to censor free speech in the name of Anglophobia and Misandry. The article clearly states that their transgressions are overwhelmingly negative, even from the Millennials themselves and thus it needs to be stated that the Black Panthers/Black Lives Matter and Feminazis are significantly less then what they are stated to be on both articles.--124.186.83.235 (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Anglophobia? Unfortunately I can't work out the meaning of what you are trying to say. Koncorde (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about the well known fear of angles (obtuse, sharp, etc.) that millenials possess. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly negative reception to their massive hypocrisy and animosity doesn't exactly represent a entire generation.--124.186.83.235 (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


These two sentences beg to differ about Gen Y...

"The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism. In 2011 when the term first appeared on Twitter it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one."--124.187.59.131 (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


As a (mostly) impartially reader and college grad I would like to add that the social justice warrior article on wiki, detailing a pejorative term, is bound to bring strong emotions and a debate as to how valid and under what circumstances this term functions or how it was born and the underlying principles that surround it. Having said that, the language of the article is quite definite for a concept of this contentiousness and needs to allow more than one group to contribute. Locking dissenters out through force of noise (on the internet this is he/she who can edit the fastest or most continuously, in person the loudest shouter) doesn't add intelligence or validity to an argument. On the contrary, it shows a lack of faith in the stance one has committed to. Arguments stand on their own two feet. Weak or strong, this article should contain as many views as there are in real life. Intelligence was never born from repression of ideas. A civil discourse is the hallmark of many wiki articles, let the reader decide which is the most valid point. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revnan84 (talk • contribs)

  • Revnan84, I'm not quite sure what you are addressing--I do not know that dissenters (to the article's content?) are being shouted out. As for "as many views as there are in real life", Wikipedia deals only with the material that is well-sourced by independent, secondary publications, so not every view is worthwhile presenting; that is not what an encyclopedia should do. EvergreenFir, I'll let you decide if this is part of the previous conversation, or if you want to stick a new header on this. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Revnan84's comment appears (?) unrelated to the above collapsed comments. While discussion about a given topic is certainly to be encouraged, the article's talk page is not the forum to conduct such a discussion (WP:NOTFORUM). Rather, this page is meant to be used to improve the article. Are there particular parts in the article you think need addressing or certain perspectives not duly represented? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Whatever he is or isn't talking about, if you're going to close the other one with NOTFORUM, clearly his should also be closed. He's not even talking about specific parts of the article, much less bringing sources or even proposing changes. It's a rant about what he thinks about this term. Isenta (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

Social justice warriors normally believe that people who disagree with them are part of the problem. 50.32.197.0 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct/Expand definition

As of now, it's written in the article that "The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction". But that's only half-true.

The main problem with SJW is that they promote social justice like some universal and undisputed concept, that it's not. Just look at the wikipedia article about social justice - there is the whole section about its criticism. And that's why people, who criticize social justice itself also criticize SJW. Because what SJW claim to be social justice, in reality, is only their personal views. That's why you should change definition into "The accusation of being an SJW carries implications that accused person is either adopting 'progressive' political stance in pursuing personal validation or trying to impose personal views on others by passing them as 'progressive' and 'socially just'." --193.151.224.4 (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Social Justice" has very little to do with any requirement of being accused of being an "SJW"; the evidence from the sources is that as a pejorative it is a convenient method to divert attention, silence, and marginalise anyone who holds any opinion that the end user perceives to be "liberal" or "progressive" (or that they just don't like). It joins the fine list of pejoratives such as "Pinko" and "Commie" that have pretty much nothing to do with the user espousing or holding views that are Communist in any way, but are convenient ways to dismiss their liberal and progressive ideals.
All theoretical social or political ideals have their criticisms such as Criticism of libertarianism, Criticism of capitalism etc. Koncorde (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't said that SJW hold "Social Justice" veiws. I said that SJW claim that their views are "Social Justice" and use that as convenient method to divert attention, silence and marginalise anyone, who holds any opinion that SJW perceives to be "non liberal" or "non progressive" (or that they just don't like). And that should be reflected in the article.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Find reliable sources, otherwise this is a non-productive discussion. Your personal definition of SJW is not of interest to Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Here is a couple of sources:
http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw
https://heatst.com/tech/minecraft-creator-notch-defines-the-term-social-justice-warrior/
And just in case you are going to say that self-published sources are not reliable, I remind you that WP:SELFSOURCE states that self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.
Remember, that we are talking about opponents of SJW and the statement The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction. But those two links clearly show that at least two wellknown Internet personas, who oppose SJW define SJW less by their ideological background, but more by their agressive attitude towards unwanted opinions.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I am going to say that: No, Roosh V's drivel isn't a reliable source. I am aware of selfsource, and that only works if we have some reason to actually mention their self-published opinions. You have not indicated any valid reason. Being an opponent of something doesn't confer special privilege to comment on that thing. Valizadeh isn't a recognized expert on anything that I'm aware of. His opinion would only belong with reliable, secondary coverage, and only then with clear attribution as being his specific opinion.
Markus Persson is not an expert on social justice, linguistics, sociology, or any relevant field that I am aware of. He's an expert on video game development and selling businesses to Microsoft for boatloads of money, neither of which have any bearing on this. If you really, really wanted to include Notch's views, we could discuss it based on attribution and WP:DUE, but even then it seems way too weak. Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Here we go again. We a not talking about 'social justice' we are talking about statement 'accusation of being SJW carries implications of...'.
Who knows what implications accusation of being SJW carries? Obviously the one, who accuses a person of being SJW (it's his accusation after all). Who accuses a person of being SJW? A person who is an opponent of SJW. So it's SJW opponents are people, who are experts on what they imply when they accuse someone being SJW. Not people, who are accused of being SJW!--193.151.224.4 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You explicitly said "The main problem with SJW is that they promote social justice" and "that's why people, who criticize social justice itself also criticize SJW", and point to criticism of Social Justice within that main article as evidence of why those people (I am assuming by this you are suggesting Roosh and co) are critical of SJW. Now however you want us to accept the point of view (yours) that this is not true, and in fact criticism of SJW has nothing to do with social justice and in fact the social justice aspect is just their opinion, and Roosh and co are critical of their absence of social justice and call them SJW because they have nothing to do with it....which sounds very much like "accusation of being SJW carries implications of...". Colour me confused. Koncorde (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn, why there is no quote marks? Ok...
Quote>Koncorde"You explicitly said "The main problem with SJW is that they promote social justice" "
No, I said "The main problem with SJW is that they promote social justice like some universal and undisputed concept" The bold-marked part, that you ommited, is the key point. And yes, some of my statements about social justice and SJW are selfcontradictory exacactly because 'social justice' concept itself is selfcontradictory. Basically 'social justice' is what SJW call 'social justice'. And SJW call 'social justice' anything they consider to be 'liberal' and 'progressive'. In other words is just their personal views. And yes, the latter is my oponion. Mine, Rooch's, Preston's and pretty much every 'non progressive' person's who criticizes SJW.
Again. If this article was about 'social justice' it would be OK to write it from SJW point of view, since it's them, who use the term. But the article is about 'social justice warrior' term and it's usage. And this term (at least in it's modern sense) is used primarily by SJW's opponents. So the article should be written from their point of view or at least include one. However, most sources in the article are left-side aka pro-SJW. The only anti-SJW source I've noticed was an article by David French.
Quote from the article>And thus the same secular-progressive movement that fought for free speech in the Sixties wrote the first speech codes in the late Eighties and then raised the Millennial social-justice warriors who now are turning on their parents’ generation as insufficiently faithful to the cause.
Note, that even French criticizes social justice warriors not for the 'lack of conviction' but for their semi-religious belief in self-rightiousness.
That's why I repeat my request to change the definition of 'social justice warrior' term or at least include non-SJW (aka 'non-left' or 'non-progressivist') point of view in the article.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The missing bit makes increases the cognitive dissonance of what you are trying a to outline. SJW" don't make any claim to represent social justice according to the reliable sources. The pejorative use specifically refers to the fact that it's just a means to attack someone elses opinion, largely irrelevant of what their opinion is or if it even reflects anything that would fall within the bracket of social justice.
Pretending that the term SJW has a foundation in insulting people for supporting social justice is actually not supported by the reliable sources. The reliable sources indicate it is used to insult another person's opinion, and the evidence indicates that those currently being attacked are considered disingenuous 'white knights'.
In the end, the pejorative SJW is too strongly associated with attacking one side of a given debate without any actual reflection of their opinion, much like "commie", "pinko", "libtard" and dozens of other insults falling within the same bracket. Koncorde (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and to clarify, the David French article does not support your stance. It is defining the "social-justice warrior" as an actual active force for progressive change (which is the original meaning of the term). He is lamenting the process, but still referring to the historic context. Koncorde (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You contradict yourself and wikipedia. It states that social justice warrior is an individual "promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics." If you state that "SJW don't make any claim to represent social justice according to the reliable sources." That means that social justice concept doesn't include progressivism, feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
No, what I say is that there is a difference between being accused of being an SJW (which is merely the accusative opinion of someone on the internet) versus what the person actually is expressing, i.e. it wouldn't matter if the argument was about the colour of cats for someone somewhere to call the other person an SJW. The majority of the victims of the perjorative, per the sources, promote "socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3]" but it doesn't say that they themselves subscribe to "Social Justice" as a theory, nor do any of the sources indicate that their reason for being criticised it because they subscribe to the theory of "Social Justice" - that is something being projected at them (exactly as David French does).
This is largely a carbon copy of the accusation of being a "commie". The person accused may well hold some views that are diametrically opposed, or at the very least at variance with the accusers, but that doesn't actually mean they believe or support the idea of communism, nor is the communism itself defined as ab objective style.
In the same way the use of the term "fascist" doesn't actually mean the person is necessarily a fascist, or subscribes to any fascist ideals, regardless of what the accuser is saying.Koncorde (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So, basically you say, that when people like David French accuse someone as being SJW they imply this person adhere 'social justice' ideology, while in reality the accused person may have nothing to do with it?193.151.224.4 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's an accusation. So that's the implication. Is Feminism an aspect of "Social Justice"? Is wanting women characters in games "Social Justice"? Is it even a universal concept of feminism? The answer is "it doesn't matter" as the accusation really is irrelevant to the subject. It's just a global pejorative catch all. Someone's opinion (I.e. Roosh) of another person and his reason for calling them an SJW will be entirely different (maybe) to why a Gamergate supporter would.
The reliable sources give us a narrative we can use to describe what is little more than a playground insult. Someone like French is being a shade more acute with his use of "social-justice warrior" but in the end he is bucketing a wide group of differing stances and opinions (many mutually exclusive). Koncorde (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Quote Koncorde>accusation really is irrelevant to the subject.
Oh, really?! Then why the definition in the article reads "The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of..."--193.151.224.4 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The meaning of "commie" carries implications that the user is a supporter of Stalinist gulags, the suppression of freedoms etc. Whether or not they actually are is irrelevant. It's baggage, and as far as the accuser is concerned it's not up to them to prove everything is true.
The utilisation of SJW is the same. Whether I do or don't support anything would not stop someone accusing me of being an SJW. However if I was accused of being an SJW the reliable sources indicate that at some level it is intended to convey virtue signalling and a degree of being disingenuous and to be seen as even more 'right' (per French's comments regarding subsequent generations maligning earlier for not going far enough). Koncorde (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, no reliable sources have been presented which support these changes. Valizadeh isn't a reliable source for anything, nor is he an established expert on any related field, so his self-published opinions absolutely don't belong. From WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Nope, that never happened.
The HeatStreet article is clickbait political gossip with no substance, and needs to be weighed accordingly. Notch is a video game developer, and not an expert in any related field. His opinion is WP:UNDUE without substantially better sources which provide context explaining why anyone should care. The HeatStreet article provides no context or commentary on his self-published opinions, it merely reprints them with a tiny bit of bratty snark added. It calls his comments "shitposting", is that supposed to be a reliable source? Notch's tweets and reddit posts are simplistic and uninformative on their own, and again, he is a video game developer not an established expert, so what, exactly, would we include from this? Why would his off-hand comments mean the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten to ignore other, more reliable sources?
French's opinion is presented as his opinion. If you think that should be adjusted, sure, I can see that. So propose how that should be done. Grayfell (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So basically you both say that if you ban some psychologist from wikipedia (hipothetically) and he says that it's because you have an inferiority complex, than that's what's true. Not your statement that he was banned for vandalizing wiki. For he is an expert in psychology and you're just a moderator.
Because that's your logic. Person B accuses person A being SJW. And person A says: "person B thinks that I lack conviction, because SJW 'is not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice'." And you state that person A is a reliable source on what person B thinks, because person A has an article published.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and btw Koncorde, doesn't the latter quote from one of 'reliable sources' proves that SJW actually 'subscribe' to 'social justice' theory?--193.151.224.4 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What? No reputable psychologist would make a claim like that about a specific person they had not met and personally evaluated, because that's a fast-track to getting sanctioned by their professional governing body. That seems like an astonishingly bad thing to throw away a career over. Even if they had evaluated the person, they would have confidentiality agreements and ethical guidelines which make it even more tricky. Having guidelines and the respect of peers are why they are recognized experts. Get it? Experts are experts for a reason, and even then we still need to judge the context. You find a reliable source and we'll talk more about what does and doesn't belong. Are you actually interested in understanding how Wikipedia works? Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm very interested in understanding how Wikipedia works. Because you're still considering SJW to be reliable source on SJW opponents. You indeed correct that if reputable psychologist makes a claim about a person without evaluating that person with making all arrangements that claim wouldn't be considered viable. However, when some 'social justice' expert makes claims about people, who call her SJW (sometimes her claims being offending and insulting and obviously there could be no agreement there) you take this claim as reliable. Which is going against all quidelines I've read so far.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
SJW is an insult used against people. Why would a person be an unreliable source just because they were insulted? Wouldn't that be giving the insult a huge amount of power and the insulted no recourse? I don't see what the logical connection is. Are you talking about a specific person, here? If an expert in social justice is making claims about a specific person, let's discuss that, because that's more complicated. If you're talking about a more general case, I'm still waiting for those reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
So that's what this is all about? Not to give SJW opponents power? In previous comments your collegue Koncorde compared SJW insult to "commie". Now, let's look, where typing commie would lead. It's a full scale article on Anti-communism which sources are, Guess who? Anti-communists - people who are opposed to communism! And only a small section of the article is dedicated to opposition to anti-communism and includes communist view of the issue.
Making an article about SJW insult based on SJW sources is the same as making anti-communism article based on communist sources.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh wow, you missed the point completely, on several levels. Some people are communists and they admit they are communists, because it's a political position a person can have. "Commie" is a pejorative, but it's a pejorative label for something that exists. "Social justice warrior" isn't like that at all. Nobody admits they are SJWs, because it's mainly used by angry people as an insult on the internet. Even reliable sources cannot seem to agree on what it means, so who's embracing it? Nobody embraces something that's meaningless. Nobody is saying "I am an SJW, and I think that..." Social justice isn't even an ideology, it's a concept used to discuss policies and ideologies. Do you understand that?
That's what I mean by giving the insult power. By implying that "SJW"s are being cited, you are trying to confirm that they are SJWs, which is just another insult. You don't get to do that, only reliable sources get to do that, and only in limited cases. It is a childish tactic to discredit a source by insulting it. Am I wrong? If so, find reliable sources.
We go by reliable sources. Have I mentioned that lately? We don't care if a source is pro or anti-social justice except to the degree they are reliable. Being "anti-social justice" is not a thing people are going to admit casually. Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. No reliable source is likely to say they are opposed to that. If you think I'm wrong, find a reliable source that says they are anti-social justice and which explains the term SJW. If you know of sources that are anti-social justice, and which also explain what "social justice warrior" mean, present them here. That's what you have to do now, otherwise you're wasting time. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong. Sure, there are communists. And they admit that they are communists. But no communist would say "I'm a commie". The same way no person, who claims to fight against 'social injustice' and 'privileged social groups' and make statements about 'white straight men oppressing women' would indentify herself as 'social justice warrior'. Despite that she is exactly the person, who is called SJW by those, who were offended by her words/actions and/or consider them unjustified.
Look, if SJW don't exist, then how it's an insult to call someone SJW? Because he doesn't exist, so that means that I insult noone!--193.151.224.4 (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
P.S. What do you say about these links?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/10/campus-sjws-get-paid-by-the-hour-at-the-university-of-arizona/
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/05/19/even-after-arizona-backlash-ucla-will-hire-social-justice-advocates-too/
Quite a few communists would say they were a 'commie', it would be an attempt to re-appropriate the insult into a positive term but they would not be claiming to support gulags and the like. Similarly someone who claims to be a "Social Justice Warrior" (there is an article later on about doing so) would be trying to reclaim it from the aspersions being cast at it and re-defining it back as the positive term it used to be.
If I call someone "shit for brains" they don't actually need to have shit for brains for them to be insulted. Similarly calling someone a "loser" doesn't actually need them to be a basement dweller with no job and socially awkward to be insulted. Koncorde (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Having been labeled by somebody as a commie, or an SJW, or a shit-for-brains, doesn't invalidate them as a source. Using that label on someone else doesn't make a source any more reliable than it otherwise would be. In other words, "SJWs" can still be reliable sources. Anti-SJWs are not automatically reliable sources for this article.

Those links are to opinions written by Tom Knighton for PJ Media. That site is, among other things, a "collaborative blog" and "citizen-journalist" website. Neither of those are bad things, but they still need to demonstrate a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" required by RS, otherwise they are just blogs. The site is tabloid-like and uses incendiary language similar to click-bait, and the site covers several WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories as being credible. This is unlikely to have a positive reputation, and demonstrates very poor fact-checking. That these articles are both opinions by a non-notable person who does not present any credible claim to expertise in any related field is also an issue which would need to be addressed. In other words, no. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Having been labeled by somebody as a commie, or a SJW, or a shit-for-brains, doesn't invalidate them as a source. Using that label on someone else doesn't make a source any more reliable than it otherwise would be. In other words, "SJWs" can still be reliable sources. Anti-SJWs are not automatically reliable sources for this article.

That's BS. SJW can be reliable source on 'social justice' topics, but not on the people who call them SJW. You've already agreed that if psychologist makes a claim about a person whom he doesn't know, haven't exemined and the person is actually his enemy, that claim is not reliable (context matters). And still, in the article you write about what anti-SJW imply when they use the term 'SJW', arguing that assessment made by 'SJW' is valid, because they are experts in some fields.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no problem here. Experts can be reliable sources on why "SJW" is a childish insult even if other people call them SJWs. If a psychologist called a specific person something, that would be an issue, because being an expert on a specific person is much more complicated. Is the article citing any expert who claims that a specific person is an "SJW"? If so, we need to address that. As it is, it seems like you've already decided that SJW means something but you have no sources to back you up. If you want us to take you seriously, find reliable sources instead of playing games with abstract examples that go nowhere. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The only experts that can be reliable sources on insults are experst on insults. If a person says that all people, who call her SJW are mysoginists, nazi, idiots or whatever, becaus SJW don't exist and they only want to disempower her - her claim is not a reliable source. Because she doesn't know and couldn't possibly know what those people think and why they do what they do. --193.151.224.4 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, okay, that's not how this works, but lets roll with it. So who is an expert on insults? This isn't just a vague insult like "shit-for-brains", but a specific insult that comes from internet culture and is used in a specific setting. It's an insult meant to imply that someone is part of a bad, separate group, and the person using it is (almost always) declaring they are not part of that group. Agree? This means that judgement is being passed on one group by another, right? So who's an expert on an insult like that? Linguists, sociologists, and anthropologists all come to mind. Those are the exact same people who study social justice. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, so "what those people think" must be supported by published, reliable sources. Those sources would consist of experts like linguists, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists, along with many others. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment when this article was massively overhauled, it was essentially decided that opinions of notable commentators had to be used as sources in the article because otherwise we basically wouldn't have any sources for large sections of the article, but to maintain POV we needed to balance the pro/anti coverage and keep this stuff to a minimum. However, there are a few much higher quality sources that can be defined as reasonably unbiased (or as near as possible), Oxford, Vice, Washington Post, Rolling Stone, and other peer reviewed literature. These are the sources we use for things like the definition in the lede. I definitely oppose using a biased commentator's wording as part of the definition. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that Vice article, that you use as a 'reliable source' for SJW definition IS biased. It's author, Allegra Ringo clearly is a pro-SJ and a feminist. She herself claims to promote 'social justice', for example. And also in her article she calls people in reddit thread misoginists just because they think it's unreasonable to compare lying to a sexual partner to a rape.
But more importantly she is not a linguist, socionlogist, reputable anthorpologist, etc (as Grayfell suggests). In fact her part of SJW definition ("SJWs don’t hold strong principles, but they pretend to") she took from Urban Dictionary. And guess what? This is not the only definition of SJW in Urban Dictionary. The most popular one, sure, but not unanimously dominant - it has 12k+ voters and SJW definition #3 (and it's the one I consider true and trying to convince you to include in the article) has 5k+ voters. So you see? Not only your "reliable source" is just a bunch of people, who voted on an internet site, but also in defining the word meaning you excluded another bunch of people, which doen't differ from the first one, except it's two times smaller. Why do you think those people shouldn't have a part? Because some feminist said so? This is clear not an unbiased approach.
That's why I continue to insist that you should expand the definition, to include SJW as people who impose their 'social justice' views on others. Or at least (if you're so afraid of anti-SJW side "gain power") you could put a link to 'social justice' criticizm, like "this article is about the insult, for constructive criticism of 'social justice' look here". So at least people, who look into the matter would know, that there things that SJW are standing for are not undisputable.--193.151.224.4 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Except vice has editorial oversight, and the source you are suggesting doesn't. This matters a lot to wikipedia's reliable source policy. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
1. Vice is a reliable source based on editorial oversight and a variety of other factors.
2. She suggests that "A portion of the users on /v/, 4chan’s video games forum, have long disliked Quinn, a self-proclaimed feminist, for reasons that aren’t especially clear but feel suspiciously like good old-fashioned misogyny" which is very different to what you presented. Strike 1 for out of context quote mining.
3. Greyfell said "Those sources would consist of experts like linguists, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists, along with many others". Strike 2 for out of context quote mining.
4. Allegra refers to it because Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at the Oxford University Press, refers to it. Katherine Martin is the subject specialist (per Greyfell) and Allegra is the secondary / tertiary source. Strike 3 for out of context quote mining.
5. The urban dictionary definition provided and quoted is from "social justice warrior" not SJW. The definition used by Allegra and Martin dates back to 2011 as that is when they are discussing the shift in meaning of the term. The "meaning" you want to shoe-horn in is from 2015 and nobody has referenced it in any reliable sources. Your ability to ignore what is being written to only read the context that you like is somewhat impressive. Your ability to ignore the context within the articles and aggressively quote mine in order to try and construct an utterly gibberish argument is amusing, but really laboured. Everything you say is built around assuming Katherine Martin doesn't exist or made no contribution, and carefully excising out anything that doesn't echo your opinion.
6. The article does not say that what SJW are standing for is indisputable. That's for anyone to read the links to any of the subjects linked in the first and second paragraph. We are implying a neutral stance of non-opinion. Koncorde (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Koncorde has broken this down very well. Thanks very much. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If by 'breaking down' you mean discrediting me by resorting to insults and outright lie.
1. Explain please, what is 'editorial oversight', because I haven't found pricise definition in wikipedia guidelines.
2. If saying that someone's statements "feel suspiciously like good old-fashioned misogyny" is not accusations of misogyny, then what is?
3. I refered to different line, not the one Koncorde quoted.
4. There is no mention of Katherine Martin in Allegra's article. Strike 1 for outright lie.
5. Check the link in Allegra's Vice article it referes specifically to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW, not to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior. So either choice which 'social justice warrior' definition to put on wikipedia was made by wikipedia authors themselves, or Koncorde is lying again. And the rest is just accusations, accompanied by personal insults. Strike 2 for resorting to that in absence of viable arguments.
6. Maybe not directly, but claiming that using SJW term is just "convenient to have a term at the ready to dismiss women who bring up sexism" is in itself a way to dismiss opinion of someone, who oposes a person, who promotes 'social justice'.

--193.151.224.4 (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to actually apologise there, I have clicked part way through an article to the Abby Ohlheiser article with Katherine Martin which is the actual significant source of the content, so I have been rather unfair to the anon-IP in conflating the two. I withdraw elements of the above, but the point remains that you are specifically going for one article (i.e. the Allegra) and ignoring the context, weight, and content of the reliable sources being used (i.e. the Ohlheiser which is the significant source of most content as it involves Katherine Martin).
1. Editorial Oversight = having published editorial policies and reputation for fact checking, amongst other things. It's a foundation of WP:RS for news organisations.
2. She didn't accuse the reddit thread as misogynist. She said the reasons for Zoe Quinn being disliked "aren’t especially clear" and the reddit link outlines the lack of coherent and often wildly differing opinions. To quote "A portion of the users on /v/...have long disliked Quinn for reasons that aren’t especially clear but feel suspiciously like good old-fashioned misogyny". She is referring, obviously, to /v/ not reddit. Still quote mining.
3. So...quote mining?
4. You are correct, at this point I have clicked Ohlheisers article and merged them in my mind because Ohlheisers article is the one actually used for the definition (Allegra is used for the "virtue signalling" point only). My point stands. Article written in 2014, quoting the only definition that existed at that time (technically two others did but they are the historic "lionising" ones). She is the secondary / tertiary source interpreting a primary source. By attacking Allegra you are purposely ignoring the other sources used and / or trying to create a false equivalency between her interpretation of the sources as they existed in 2014, and what has been pushed since. Do you have any reliable sources discussing the third version of Urban Dictionary?
5. I'll re-factor the next part in light of my mistake on #4 "The urban dictionary definition provided and quoted in the Olhiser article is from "social justice warrior" not SJW and is the foundation of the wikipedia definition. The definition used by Ohlheiser and Martin dates back to 2011 as that is when they are discussing the shift in meaning of the term. The "meaning" you want to shoe-horn in is from 2015 and nobody has referenced it in any reliable sources. Your ability to ignore what is being written to only read the context that you like is somewhat impressive. Your ability to ignore the context within the articles and aggressively quote mine in order to try and construct an utterly gibberish argument is amusing, but really laboured. Everything you say is built around assuming Katherine Martin doesn't exist or made no contribution, and carefully excising out anything that doesn't echo your opinion."
6. Addressed as Vice's opinions. Not Wikipedia's. Your own preferred definition is an example of "a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice" by stating "SJWs are people who believe or pretend to believe in "Social Justice" which is pretty much what Allegra states when she quotes definition 1. Koncorde (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Cool! First, you apologise and later on just accuse me again of "soehorning" the real definition of SJW. Even better, you still haven't read your own sources properly. Or better say, that you've read them the way to confirm your own definition.
In her article Abby Ohlheiser indeed refers to Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at the Oxford University Press. See? Oxford University! And the definition in her article is in Oxford Dictionary, not Urban Dictionary. It's two completely different definitions in two completely different dictionaries! And more importantly with two completely different meanings.
4,5. The defeninion from Oxford (the one, you state as "the significant source of most content as it involves Katherine Martin" reads: social justice warrior (noun; informal, derogatory) A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views. And that's all! See? Ther is no conditions about what "social justice" is implied to be. Or what are the motives of mentioned "person, who expresses or promotes socially porgressive views".
It's plain and simple. If someone promotes social justice or progressive views, this person is social justice warrior. Period. There is no way to to claim that you are not social justice warrior, because you have some complex motives. Or that your opponents are delusional because they talk about something that doesn't exist. If you are pro-SJ, you are SJW. End of story.
And if you just put that definition in the wiki-article, that would be Ok. But instead you decided to elaborate and expand the definition by using Allegra Ringo's article. The problem is, however, that her statements about SJW have nothing to do with definition, they are just baseless assumptions about what people, who oppose SJW, think.
Now, here is the question - why do you give so much credibility to SJW person (from here and on I'll use Ohlheiser-Martin-Oxford definition of the term, since it's so clear, straightforward and even you recognize it) about what other people think? How can you give credibility to any person, who claims to know that his/hers opponents think?! That’s exactly what I was arguing with Grayfell about.
3. He replied that since SJW is qote “a specific insult that comes from internet culture and is used in a specific setting. It's an insult meant to imply that someone is part of a bad, separate group, and the person using it is (almost always) declaring they are not part of that group. Agree? This means that judgement is being passed on one group by another, right? So who's an expert on an insult like that? Linguists, sociologists, and anthropologists all come to mind. “(you’ve requested the whole quote, right?)
And earlier he told me about context matters policy – if an expert makes a claim it can be considered reliable source only if that claim is made (a) as professional opinion (it’s within an area of expertise of that expert and all necessary research was made to back it) and (b) there is a proof that this expert is unbiased.
So, does Allegra Ringo's article meet these criteria? Obviously not. She never did any research – she just took some group of SJW-haters, used a definition from Urban Dictionary (one of many definitions, without explaining why she chose that specific one) and made some assumptions about people, who use SJW term in general. This can be considered anything but professional assessment.
And there is no proof that she is unbiased in the matter. In fact it’s the contrary. In her article Allegra openly supports feminism and social justice. Which means that she is SJW (Ohlheiser’s definition, remember) and thus she obviously not qualified to be unbiased towards people, who hold anti-SJW position, no matter, how well established expert on the Internet culture she is. Except she never was any expert in the first place, she is just a journalist with just her own opinions on the subject.
1. And that’s why “editorial oversight” doesn’t work. You said it’s primary goal is “fact checking”, so let’s check facts – Allegra took one group of SJW-haters, used an SJW definition from Urban Dictionary (one of many definitions, without explaining why she chose that specific one) and made some accusations. And her editors were Ok with that. Why? Maybe they are also SJW, maybe they don’t care to correct inconsistencies, because the accusations are aimed at some internet trolls or maybe they just didn’t thought that it matters, since the article is about some stupid mascot, not explaining SJW term. Idk.
Anyway, bottom-line. Allegra’s article has nothing to do with your “primary” definition used by Ohlheiser and Martin. Allegra's assumption of what people mean using SJW term based on nothing except her own opinion. And since she is SJW this opinion is obviously meant to dismiss opinions of people, who oppose her and her views. And that her article is published on “reliable” site proves nothing except her editors agree with her. And why wouldn’t they? People are fired for not complying with SJ-guidelines for crying out loud! To speak against them would mean to jeopardise their reputation?
Which brings me back to my main point. Your elaboration about “accusation of being an SJW carries implications of...“ is incorrect (or at least incomplete as it doesn’t include all established implications) and the whole article is largely pro-SJ biased, as almost all referenced sources are SJW.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and btw about #6. Yes, I really would like to find "a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice". Because I (like many others, including some people referenced in the links above) consider the "social justice" concept (at least in it's modern sense) a BS. Not because I imply that all SJW don't care, like Allegra and other SJW state.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Still at this? This is far too long to expect anyone to read carefully. At a glance, you've heinously misrepresented what I was saying about CONTEXTMATTERS, what CONTEXTMATTERS specifically says, and appear to have completely ignored or missed my larger point, as well. Being labeled by opponents as a feminist/SJW/pink communist/whatever doesn't make a source less reliable. Being published in a reputable outlet with a reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy, and fact-checking are what make her reliable. Or at least reliable enough that this approach is a waste of time.

Jafari (Jontron) was not fired, his part was dropped after he said, among other things, that black people were fundamentally more criminal than non-black people, and then double-down when people called him out on it. Dropping someone for saying extremely racist nonsense is the developer's call to make. In spite of this, plenty of people rushed to his defense without risking their jobs, so framing him as an underdog fighting a conspiracy theory is unsupportable. "Context matters" indeed. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

QuoteGrayfell:"This is far too long to expect anyone to read carefully." Yeah, good excuse to pervert what I've written.
QuoteGrayfell:"Being labeled by opponents as a feminist/SJW/pink communist/whatever doesn't make a source less reliable." I've never said that it makes. NEVER! And if you don't qoute-prove contrary you are a big fat liar!
QuoteGrayfell:"Being published in a reputable outlet with a reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy, and fact-checking are what make her reliable." And how do you determine if outlet has such reputation?
QuoteGrayfell:"Jafari (Jontron) was not fired, his part was dropped after he said, among other things, that black people were fundamentally more criminal than non-black people" Oh, that's an interesting one. I watched that video and haven't heared that he said that. Could you please bring exact qoute? Preferably with context. Otherwise is a lie again.
QuoteGrayfell:"In spite of this, plenty of people rushed to his defense without risking their jobs, so framing him as an underdog fighting a conspiracy theory is unsupportable." Never heared about that. Maybe they all were fired afterwards or maybe they were just kids and junkies witout jobs in the first place. And frankly I don't care.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Opening sentence = "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views". Anything after that is cited and sourced with reliable sources. Reliable does not mean that they are neutral or do not have a POV. Koncorde (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Then what does "reliable" mean? Apparently not one, that has firsthand knowledge. Because almost all your sources are SJW who tell about, what people who oppose SJW think.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:RELIABLE. Per prior advice, they are using the "urban" dictionary definition that existed at the time. The urban dictionary reference you "preferred" didn't exist until after the articles were written. If you have a single notable reliable source discussing an updated version, please provide it. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
As I've already said, part of WP:RELIABLE is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and according to it SJW can't be reliable source on views of people, who oppose them. Thus Allegra's article can't be reliable source on what anti-SJW imply, when they call someone SJW. And FYI there are still several definitions of SJW in urban dictionary that predate Allegra's article. So the question of legitimacy of her choice remains.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"Anyone I call an SJW is biased, and everyone who has written something I disagree with is an SJW, therefore all sources I disagree with are biased and unusable." That is some interesting logic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You got it all wrong. "Anyone, who uses SJW term is a troll, and everyone who has written something that is against SJW is unreliable. Thus only SJW can be used as reliable sources." That's the logic.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Seriously, enough is enough. Stop feeding the troll, it is fat enough. As for the IP user, drop it or I am going to take this to AN/I for tendentious editing. Stop asking what 'reliable' means, it is described thoroughly in WP:RS which has been linked to you multiple times. You seem to have no interest in learning to edit constructively or in accordance with wikipedia policy, and as such seems to be here either A) to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or B) are WP:TROLLING. In either case, this debate is over. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is just a way to dismiss a person who points inconsistencies in your statements. And there was no debate in the first place - you just dismissed all my arguments and claimed sources I present unreliable. Just so you could keep the article pro-SJW biased. So yeah, I'm outta here.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You didn't present any sources, unless you edit under another IP / User than our original IP user. Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideological camps against "SJWs" and prominent opponents of "SJWs"

I saw an allusion to Vox Day and the Hugo awards.

But the main thing, readers should know is:

1. What is the current degree of friction between the alt-right and progressives/"SJWs"?

Is the alt-right the main political block against the SJWs or is it conservatives/religious right?

2. What is the current state of friction between new atheists and SJWs? What is happening with SJWs and Richard Dawkins? How about Sam Harris?

3. I am guessing that Roosh V and TJ Kirk are the biggest Men's Rights activists/manosphere opponents of SJWs.

I went to the Progressivism article and could not find any answers there.

The 2018 midterms are coming up in the USA and there are important political battles looming in Europe post Brexit. The article providing better information on the main conflicts/opposition to progressives/SJWs would be helpful to readers. (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "SJW". It is a stereotype and caricature created in the right-wing echo chamber. You'd do just as well asking a question about welfare queens, limousine liberals, or poverty pimps. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Well... all those things do exist. Stereotypes are a thing because they reflect reality to some extent. I agree that they aren't nearly as widespread or as hard-and-fast as people tend to pretend though. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I realize that SJW is a disparaging term. That is why I indicated that I was inquiring about progressives/"SJWs". So the questions can be answered in terms of progressives. Certainly, there are various sectors of the right-wing spectrum are a stronger than others unless they are all equally strong. Knox490 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I found this material at Richard Dawkins website: "“Best wishes on your 75th, Richard. Your relentlessness and bravery in the face of pernicious SJWs, PC authoritarians and Islamists is an inspiration to us all."[2]. Dawkins is not as influential as he once was post progressive attacks on him, but perhaps the article should mention him since he is a well-known British intellectual whether you agree with him or not.Knox490 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No. Unless we have a reliable source (WP:RS) linking the two, there is no reason to strongarm him into the article (in fact is contrary to policy). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins has used the term SJW and we do have a reliable source noting this matter. "Learned a useful new phrase this week: Social Justice Warrior. SJWs can't forgive Shakespeare for having the temerity to be white and male." - Richard Dawkins.[3] [4]

The Philosophers' Magazine is a reliable source and it says about Richard Dawkins:

The second split, not at all orthogonal to the first one, separates defenders of “free speech” (who tend to be libertarian, but not exclusively) from advocates of “social justice” (who tend to be progressive, but not exclusively).
This also has led to nasty exchanges, with accusations of Islamophobia and misogyny being hurled (sometimes appropriately, at other times not so much) to people like Sam Harris, comedian Bill Maher, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. The response from those so accused has been that the other side is stifling the right to free speech, a standard tactic that has already emerged in reference to the latest Dawkins debacle. Except, of course — as Steve Novella has pointed out — that NECSS, for instance, is a private organization whose own free speech is exercised by the choice of who they do and do not invite, not to mention that to claim that Dawkins’ speech is being stifled, considering the huge number of followers and endless number of platforms he has available, is more than a bit ridiculous."[5]

So there is a reliable source indicating friction between advocates of "social justice" and Richard Dawkins. And we have Dawkins himself disparaging "Social justice warriors" and a reliable source noting this matter.Knox490 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Main opponents are whoever wants to use the term. It's a universal boogie-man. Don't like someones opinion of your opinion? SJW! Someone told you something about black people, SJW! Think having female characters in games that fulfil more than stereotypical gender roles? SJW up the wazoo. There's also no reliable way to say What Dawkins refers to is necessarily the same as what Roosh is referring to. Dawkins for instance is likely referencing the Atheism+ crowd that effectively caused as schism in the Atheist / Skeptic community via PZ Myers Free Through Blog debacle. Roosh will be referring to anyone, for any reason, that thinks he's a dick. Koncorde (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(with below edit) Of the first two sources cited above, the first is a trivial mention about a tweet, the other is said tweet. The Philosophers' Magazine source would be fine, except nowhere does it use the term "Social Justice Warrior" or SJW.
'Advocates of “social justice”' is a different, though related, thing. This article is about the term, not social justice warriors themselves (which are not a group), 'advocates of social justice' are a group, but they are not "Social Justice Warriors" until someone uses the term to describe them, and even then the term doesn't define those targeted with it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This shows the pointlessness of trying to figure out what it 'really means' and who is or isn't an SJW. Roosh's opinion has already been dismissed by anyone he labels an "SJW". It's not a word to define people by their behaviors or beliefs, it's a word to define outsiders among insiders based on a handful of loosely defined and constantly shifting boundaries. Like politically correct, it may have once meant something specific, but now it's about as meaningful as 'doodie-head'. Dawkin's use of the term says a lot about him and almost nothing about the term itself. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell Not exactly. The term still means something, it (generally) is used to disparage certain kinds of behaviors, which we have listed in the lede, based on reliable sources that we have available. Just because some people use it willy-nilly as an insult at people that don't match those behaviours doesn't mean that the term doesn't mean anything, it just means the either A) The term is being used inappropriately, or B) the term is evolving. That's how language works, especially with new terms. To determine weather A or B is true we should use the weight of reliable sources as best we can. My main point though was that SJWs are not a group that defines themselves, it is an pejorative used to describe others. I would argue the same is true about the term 'alt-right', few if any identify themselves by either term, but those defined by these terms are generally in favor of, or in opposition to, certain policies or ideologies, which then defines the boundaries of the term. It is not "pointless" to define the term, just difficult. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Our approaches are different, but I think we are basically in agreement. Alt-right is a term people have enthusiastically used for themselves, although that fad has died down a lot for many reasons. SJW, on the other hand, is a term almost exclusively used to define someone else based on a broad set of behaviors and perceived motives. As you say, language is evolving, and as I said, it's a term that once meant something more specific, but now means something much less well-defined. I was exaggerating to demonstrate my point, but I didn't mean to imply that the term was totally meaningless. Even 'doodie-head' has a meaning. What I was trying to say is that that it's unproductive to try and assign 'SJW' to specific people. It's especially unproductive to try and assign it to specific people without paying close attention to who is doing the assigning. This is not, necessarily, the same as 'alt-right', because that does have a more clearly established history of self-usage as associated with ideology.
As an insult, it's a way of saying 'this person is bad and not like us'. That's very simplistic, but it's true of most insults, and sometimes it's better to set-aside commentary on specific behavior or pass/fail tests. It often makes more sense to view it as a way to communicate group identity and norms. I could go on about this, but I think it's clear this has moved into WP:NOTFORUM, so... Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I think we are in large agreed on this. Though I'd like to point out that there are plenty out there that are proud to call themselves SJWs: [6] [7] [8] [9] so the comparison to 'alt-right' seems pretty apt to me (though I agree when you say it has more of a history of self-usage). I definitely agree that it is unproductive to try and assign 'SJW' to specific people, and would also say that it is equally unproductive to assign 'alt-right' to someone if they do not self-identify as such. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
We should also be clear that people calling themselves an "SJW" are reclaiming said term, not using the disparaging meaning. Koncorde (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
That's an important difference with 'alt-right'. People call themselves alt-right for many reasons, but self-described SJWs are, according to those sources, making a specific point about the people who have labeled them 'SJWs'. They are using specifically because of it's pejorative connotations. Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair points. Though there are others such as Carl Benjamin for whom "alt-right" has been used in a similar manner to "SJW", as an insult intended to dismiss the recipient's argument. Yeah its not a perfect fit but the similarities are there. In any case I'll concede the point to you guys that it isn't exactly the same, and we are drifting a bit into forum territory so I'll end here. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Dawkins has also been disparaged many times by progressives in the mainstream press and prominent progressive websites. These instances are mainly in relation to: his Elevatorgate controversy; his comments about Muslims and attendant accusations of Islamophobia and Dawkins' recent de-platforming at an atheist conference which he said likely contributed to him having a stroke.

Below are some of the reliable sources relating to the Elevatorgate incident where Dawkins locked horns with social progressives:

I'll have a look at these later, after work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Popularization of term social justice warrior (SJW): Alt-right, YouTube, Phil Mason and TJ Kirk

Would it be fair to say that the alt-right, the website YouTube, Phil Mason and TJ Kirk helped popularize the term social justice?

Right now the article says, "Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites Reddit and 4chan". But this is not an accurate usage of the source. The actual source says, "Amid these seemingly constant crises, a new pejorative term has cropped up in online communities like Reddit and 4chan: the ‘social justice warrior,’ or SJW." (Bolding for emphasis).[10]

In other words, since the source merely says "like" Reddit and 4Chan, YouTube could be mentioned as well.

Why YouTube?

For example, there is a YouTube channel called SJWCentral with over 27,000,000 video views and there is a a YouTube channel called Social Justice Fails with over 6,000,000 views. And these are merely two YouTube channels. Phil Mason has been a very ardent opponent of "SJWs" and he has a very large YouTube subscriber base. TJ Kirk also has a big YouTube channel and he has repeatedly attacked "SJWs". Most of these videos employ mockery.

How active is the alt-right on Reddit and 4chan? During the French Revolution mockery was used extensively by the left against the Roman Catholic Church and it accelerated the secularization of France.[11] Saul Alinsky was a leftist who advocated mockery. The alt-right uses mockery/memes more than conservatives. To what extent does the alt-right mock SJWs in terms of the extent of their internet activism?

The alt-right figure Vox Day published a book which sold a lot of copies called "SJWs always lie: Taking down the thought police" and Google indicates it has a Amazon Bestselling rank of #16,015 which seems like a high ranking considering the amount of books published each year.[12]

What I am trying to determine is what role did the alt-right play in popularizing the term social justice warrior and to what extent did YouTube popularize the term.Knox490 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Any response to this is Original Research beyond the reliable sources, and a synthesis of unreliable sources / opinion otherwise. Talk pages are not a forum, and this just seems to be a growing litany of divergent subjects. I am not understanding what the goal or intent of this, but this doesn't seem appropriate for a talk page per WP:NOTFORUM. Koncorde (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't even want to try to unpack all of that. But briefly, most reliable sources that I have seen pretty much define 4Chan politically as 'alt-right' in nature (especially boards such as /pol), but once you start trying to define that term and who is or is not 'alt-right' you run into the same issue as with SJW, it is most commonly a term used by people to define others, not the name of an actual movement, or a name people use to describe themselves (it might have started as a movement but then quickly became an almost pejorative term used by opponents of right wing advocates to define them in such a way that puts them in the same group as white supremacists, and literal neo-Nazis). As for who popularized "SJW", I suspect no one in particular had a dominant hand in it, the term seems relatively memetic in nature and probably popularized itself in the way that such things do. I agree with Koncorde that we are straying into WP:FORUM territory here, find reliable sources, and don't rely on WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH (or else become a reporter). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Concorde, look at the updating of my talk page comments above. The source cited in the article was misused. It merely says says sites "like" Reddit and 4 channel.
In addition, I am not advocating using original research. It is merely a starting point in doing better research for the article.Knox490 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "like" is being used with the meaning "such as". For instance if I say "the biggest football teams in the world, like Manchester United and Real Madrid, are dominating world sports" I am saying that Manchester United and Real Madrid are dominating but giving context. The source could have listed 8chan, Ask.fm, Youtube, or called out any number of individuals, etc etc but didn't. Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The source isn't misused, though I'd agree that it leaves room for (and also implicitly suggests) that other sites popular with the same demographic (i.e. YouTube) were also important. I'd tentatively support the inclusion of YouTube with Reddit and 4Chan in that sentence per WP:COMMONSENSE, but it would be good to have a citation needed[citation needed] tag added after "YouTube" so that someone will eventually add a source to support it (there is probably already one out there to be honest but it is a difficult thing to search for--I tried for about 10 minutes just now). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Twitter is probably far easier to cite. Koncorde (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
We used to have a policy specifically about citing twitter but I just noticed that WP:TWITTER now redirects to WP:SELFPUB. Our policies became less of a bureaucracy??? How did this happen? :D — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I actually meant we can likely find published reliable sources referencing the use of SJW via Twitter. But also yay otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"SJWs": Emotional "triggering" and the term "snowflake" needs to be mentioned in the article

One of the primary things that "social justice warriors" have become known for is being easily emotionally "triggered" and many having emotional meltdowns after Donald Trump's election. The term "snowflake" is commonly given "SJWs" now by the alt-right and I there are reliable sources mentioning this matter such as the LA Times and International Business Times [13][14](The term snowflake is a derogatory term relating to emotional instability).

RealClearPolitics, Heatstreet and many other websites refer to "triggering" "SJWs".[15][16][17] The American Conservative appears to be a reputable by Wikipedia (No criticism section, not a hate website, etc.). The American Conservative wrote an article called Trumpophobia Melts SJW Snowflakes.

So the article focuses on a derogatory term, shouldn't the related derogatory term "snowflake" be mentioned in the article? And shouldn't "triggering" be mentioned in the article? If the article is going to focus on a stereotype - namely SJW - it needs to mention the stereotypical behavior of SJWs.

After Donald Trump's election and after Brexit there was an actual spike in mental health services usage.[18][19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knox490 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it only needs to mention that if sources mention that, and none of those sources mention that.
Neither the LA Times article nor the IBTimes one make any connection between 'snowflake' and SJW, they are both just listed as alt-right slang.
The existence of a WP:CSECTION in an article has no bearing on how it's used elsewhere in Wikipedia. American Conservative is an opinion outlet, and not being hate website is setting an extremely low bar. It could be used, with attribution, maybe, but... why? 99% of that article is copy/pasted emails sent out by colleges. His two or three paragraphs of filler don't do much to establish this is of lasting, encyclopedic significance. Examples of Rod Dreher using an insult just seems like hot air, even by political gossip standards. By this standard, I'm sure I could find something to link the alt-right to Cheeto stains and basement dwelling, but that's not really what we're doing here, right?
Do Guardian and Marketwatch call people "SJWs" or "snowflakes"? Do they mention any connection between that and trauma triggers? Yes, these ideas are used as insults by the same group of people. Trying to use sources to make a point about Trump opponents psychological state is original research and non-neutral in the extreme. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
>American Conservative is an opinion outlet
It's funny how this only enforced when the publication endorses right-wing opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_justice_warrior/Archive_2&oldid=1075607838"