Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:43, 25 November 2014

Social Justice Warrior

Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pejorative term invented by opponents of an ideology; there don't appear to be significant reliable sources discussing it, unlike Rush Limbaugh's feminazi. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong keep term is in very frequent use, and has received sufficient coverage in RSs. The topic will be controversial and possibly should be locked until Gamergate dies down a little but should definitely stay. Juno (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Please note that the article now has 9 more sources than it did when it was nominated for deletion and was viewed 3,000 times in the last week. Juno (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Weak keep: Direct coverage in many outlets (1 2 3 4 5, just off the top of google) and reference by name in many others. Deadbeef 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjusting magnitude of my support per the valid arguments listed below. I still stand at keep based solely on GNG but concede it is decidedly less black-and-white. Deadbeef 19:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong delete The reliable sources that are even on the page barely mention the term, and only as a fringe pejorative. What is Misplaced Pages, knowyourmeme.com now? Dave Dial (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Tentative keep. This could get messy, we should watch out for off-site canvassing and there'll be plenty of WP:SPA involvement too I shouldn't wonder. That aside, a brief search gives these sources, though I've gotta say, they took some finding; most references to it are in blogs and other unreliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears to meet GNG and likely WP:NEO. Whether or not the sources are currently cited doesn't matter for AfD purposes, and there appear to be a whole lot of them. Mostly related to GamerGate of course (193 hits for the term in quotes at google news), but also related to men's rights and more generally. --— Rhododendrites \\ 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - Appears notable. Google news search reveals multiple on topic hits --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete – We are not a dictionary. We don't provide definitions for every fad turn-of-phrase. Take this over to Wiktionary. I've never even heard of it, whatever it is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't follow this one. It's clearly not a dicdef, and strongest possible delete seems awfully charged for a dicdef even if it were. Also, although many articles about neologisms are deleted, we do also keep a lot. It just matters if there's sufficient coverage about the term (rather than just use of the term). --— Rhododendrites \\ 04:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is, since it has no notability as determined by reliable sources, and is a product of recentism and WP:SOAP. Once I see it in the OED, or some similar book of words and phrases, then maybe it warrants an article. It certainly does not now. It is a WP:FRINGE term. I'm not defending any of the OTHERSTUFF that ought be deleted too. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages documents fringe topics, so that would not be a reason for deletion. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge - into Social justice. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a prime example of WP:RECENT doing a poor job to allege notability. To quote, "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view ." Search results yield urban dictionary and primarily blogs. Citations are far from ideal to say the least (opinion pieces and blogs and heavy partisan bias) and largely just mention the term and are not articles dedicated to it. Note: I just cited every source from the article as highly suspect and arguably not worth inclusion; That this article relies on those as primary sources speaks volumes. When evaluated with source intent, recentism, and Misplaced Pages's wider objectives of likely historical context, the result is clear that WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT do not apply. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that WP:RECENT is an essay which may be in the minority view of users and should be garnered no weight for a policy based deletion rationale. WP:NEO does not apply because it's received ample coverage and WP:WORDISSUBJECT because there is encyclopedic information to be harvested from sources which just have not been reincarnated as a result. Tutelary (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone with your experience level should know that essays with such large precedent behind them are perfectly valid AfD talking points. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also per RGloucester on WP:DICTIONARY. We aren't here to host buzzwords or memes. Moreover, just because a term is used in the media doesn't automatically grant notability. I'd also support Isaidnoway's idea to merge and let them handle the matter of inclusion over there if there is no consensus here. The regulars over there would handle it better than a largely-bureaucratic AfD. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Purely keeping to the sources, there has been ample coverage and discussion of the term in itself, and as such, warrant notability. The commentators seeking to devoid or delete this page based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY are missing the point. It's not so much an example of the term that that's the issue, it's entries that don't devolve onto it further than that that the policy is intending to eliminate. Feminazi is an example of such. An ample page describing the cultural aspect of the term, to who it is applied, and the like certainly doesn't run afoul of it. Even keeping past that, easily meets WP:GNG in all aspects. Tutelary (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Obvious delete per WP:RECENT, the OP, and lack of notability except SPS-type stuff surrounding petty internet conflicts. Misplaced Pages isn't Urban Dictionary. Hustlecat 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you perhaps use an actual policy rather than an essay? Tutelary (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. WP:GNG. Was also going to add to my original reason, that the page can/will probably be created once more has been written on it in various places. But definitely no reason to exist now. Got a good eyeroll outta me though. Hustlecat 05:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if the arguments at RECENT gained consensus, they would make sense for a merge and redirect rather than a delete and salt that is being proposed. Article titles should guide to relevant content instead of blanked pages, and the references show widespread use of the term, so it's a likely search term. This AfD should be decided with the interest of readers in mind rather than those of editors defending this or that cause; and readers need to know what is it that is being referred to with this name by such fringe sources like The Washington Post or The Irish Times, either at this page or at some other containing the same material. All the arguments based on "this is too important" or "this is too unimportant" should be essentially ignored. Diego (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Dylanfromthenorth. The sources are there. The article does need to be watched for the usual POV warriors. --Two kinds of pork_Bacon 06:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I originally edited this page to fix obvious POV issues and some (although admittedly not all) of the unreliable/discredited sources, and I'm pleased to see it's been restructured and improved since (despite the edit warring). Nonetheless I don't think this subject is worthy of a standalone article. I think it's worth considering added its content into the Gamergate article as a dedicated section though. Randomwellwisher (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete and salt The term is fringe at best and this exact article was already deleted a month or so ago. The article itself is badly sourced and utterly redundant in terms of academic value. We already have a lengthy article on Social Justice and don't need one for this weird pejorative --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The article also gives undue weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain. There is no evidence why this man should define the topic and he doesn't seem to have written any books or such on the subject of social justice. In fact the articles sourcing in general is weak and the definition doesn't fit how the term is used --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect to Social justice. The subject of a "Social Justice Warrior" is simply trivial, and relates exclusively to the greater subject of social justice, which already has an article. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed SPA on the grounds that I am an active contributor, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic at hand, I would prefer to not involve myself and bring attention to my main account. - 64.235.72.185 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Still not an SPA. WP:AGF - 208.107.110.144 (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly uncomfortable with the idea that you are both an established user AND editing with an IP. It sounds like you may be evading a COI. Juno (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Further note Does anybody have the previous AfD where it was successfully deleted? It should be linked at the top --109.148.127.93 (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It was as an expired proposed deletion on the 5th October . (Apologies if I didn't do that link right; it's to a search of the deletion logs, should work though). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There was an AfD for it, I believe, although it may have been deleted before that. Is there no record of the deletion? Some people made compelling arguments for its deletion and it was thankfully successful, it should be listed here now that somebody felt the need to recreate so soon after the deletion of the first one, or this will keep happening --109.148.127.93 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Delete WP:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Try Wiktionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak keep The most relevant category for this term is Category:Political metaphors referring to people. See other articles in there for a reference. I think this word has been covered in quite a lot of media recently, such as being explained several times in the Guardian for example. On the other hand, it's not as notable as angry white male for example as that one is even found in dictionaries, so I'll mark this as weak keep --Pudeo' 12:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Social justice. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article per WP:IMPORTANCE. gbrading (ταlκ) 13:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect or transwiki: per above. Never mind recentism, this is a dicdef at best. Nha Trang 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This is a relavant term but it is probably going to cause headaches. Also the filing party submitted it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT Retartist (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• delete i dont see any reliable sources about the subject that are not merely WP:DICDEF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • if Pejorative were better built out, it might be a possible merge target. Would there be another place to send it? either merge or redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, was easily able to find secondary sources discussion among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You should post them here, I haven't seen the term used in serious news coverage or academic texts on social justice but if you can find good sources then we should keep it --109.148.127.93 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Merge because no one ever says that and because it would be easy enough to create a section on the social justice article for online social justice movements where this term can be noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • except that it is not ever actually about "social justice", its primarily "anti feminist" and more generally "anti-something-that- we -think/claim- is-feminist- but- there- is- never- any- actual- examples- of"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - We're not a dictionary, and there's no indication in sources that the pejorative itself is notable. News articles that mention the term do so to define the epithet for the reader, when they quote some gamergater who uses it. That's not an establisher of notability. Tarc (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete NN pejorative. Take it to Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary --Guerillero | My Talk 21:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment without !voting at this time. The frequent use of SJW in Gamergate controversy is incomprehensible without an acronym link. The acronym should be included somehow. Robert McClenon (talk)

This exists: --5.81.52.82 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's one article, an iffy article at that. Also, the acronym "SJW" is referred to once in the article, the full description two other times. At the very most, a section can be added on the Social justice article. But that is not my !vote. Dave Dial (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• keep : this term is now often used. --Vspaceg (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)|

There aren't really many good sources for this being notable. The first google results are Urban Dictionary, a Tumblr blog and Roosh V's personal blog --5.81.52.82 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question: This phrase is an obvious Neologism. How many articles does WP have on neologisms? Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • • Yes, we do: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The few sources actually about this term - rather than just discussing or mentioning it while covering another topic - do not rise above the spirit of DICDEF enough to justify a stand-alone article.--Cúchullain /c 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge to social justice. I see numerous hits on Google News, but I don't think that this could be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. I don't think this subject is as of yet independently notable beyond the concept of social justice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong keep Anyone who even infrequently uses social media should have come across the term. I will agree that the article in it's current form definitely is not brilliant, but there should be something on the topic. —Frosty ☃ 07:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are very few sources and as such it is difficult to cover the topic properly, that is if it deserves an article on the project at all --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge, though I'm not sure of the best target. It is a WP:NEO, and in light of being a negative-connotation word, should not be used in isolation without being able to fully give it context. As such it should be at the part of a larger article. I don't think that's social justice because while loosely related to the concept, it's not really connected. It seems the best current location is Gamergate controversy where the term got more light, though I'm aware there's other non-VG areas picking this up; however, other suggestions are possible. Deletion (or at least deletion without redirection) is inappropriate as the term is a valid search term and WP is not censored. --MASEM (t)
• Obvious keep per the numerous sources listed above. No idea whatsoever why this would be nominated. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a vote --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• • @Thargor Orlando: please identify which of the sources are not merely uses of the term or go beyond WP:DICDEF and are actually about the phrase itself? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Forbes, The New York Times, Vice, The Irish Times, The Washington Post and Recode all give definitions and provide context on their usage. Diego (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd suggest merging it along with feminazi and any others into an article about something along the lines of pejoratives associated with radical feminism. HalfHat 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the largely ill-informed "keep because it's used a lot" votes confuse usage of the term with coverage of the term itself, as a pejorative word. Feminazi has received significant coverage in sources on the nature of the word itself, which is why an article there is justified. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

We are still even lacking in a basic definition of the term. The current one gives WP:UNDUE weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain --5.81.52.82 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's odd considering we got one for the GamerGate article. HalfHat 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking about GamerGate? --5.81.52.82 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Because that has or at least had a definition of the term. HalfHat 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"We had to scramble to the dregs of potentially usable sources because there we no actually reliable sources" speaks volumes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? HalfHat 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the fact that for us to even have a "definition" for this article we need to stoop to a blogger, from a finance magazine none the less, because no actual reliable linguistic-based sources have covered the term - ie the "source" in the GG article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates