Misplaced Pages

Talk:Social justice warrior: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:55, 22 November 2014 editJuno (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,177 edits →The subject and the bigger picture: Literally no one.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:20, 22 November 2014 edit undoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →The subject and the bigger picture: stop your BLP slanderingNext edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
::::::I'm fine to go with a source/quote other than Forbes (its just the best from an RS that I've seen so far) and I'm fine to put all sorts of modifiers around Kain's credentials but we need something that narrows down who SJWs are. ] (]) 11:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) ::::::I'm fine to go with a source/quote other than Forbes (its just the best from an RS that I've seen so far) and I'm fine to put all sorts of modifiers around Kain's credentials but we need something that narrows down who SJWs are. ] (]) 11:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Watch your BLP violations and making assumptions about what "everyone" will do. -- ] 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) ::::::::::Watch your BLP violations and making assumptions about what "everyone" will do. -- ] 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I can find literally no one who discusses the topic who does not think that SP fits the mold and I can find literally no one who has ever called Thomas Aquinas a SJW. ] (]) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) :::::::::::I can find literally no one who discusses the topic who does not think that fits the mold and I can find literally no one who has ever called Thomas Aquinas a SJW. ] (]) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::It's not an RS for anything besides his own opinion, and Erik Kain doesn't write for Forbes. He's a , which is not at all the same thing. By the way, no, you're wrong about what "pretty much everyone" would do. The vast majority of people don't even use that phrase or that terminology. Its use is restricted to a subset of people who pejoratively apply it to another group of people they oppose. :::::::It's not an RS for anything besides his own opinion, and Erik Kain doesn't write for Forbes. He's a , which is not at all the same thing. By the way, no, you're wrong about what "pretty much everyone" would do. The vast majority of people don't even use that phrase or that terminology. Its use is restricted to a subset of people who pejoratively apply it to another group of people they oppose.
:::::::There is no universally-agreed-upon definition of SJW, Juno — people who pejoratively describe other people don't get to define those other people. ] (]) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) :::::::There is no universally-agreed-upon definition of SJW, Juno — people who pejoratively describe other people don't get to define those other people. ] (]) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:20, 22 November 2014

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconInternet culture Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:Gamergate sanctions

Non-notable, original research -- request deletion

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

Up for deletion but constructive edits only

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

The article, as-is, is poorly sourced and unsourced. There might be an article about this possible to write, but what's here is not a reasonable start to it. We need better sources than a blogger and a Forbes.com contributor. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Even if you think this is a candidate for WP:SPEEDY you shouldn't take matters into your own hands, others have been improving this page (marginally). I considered additional citations and a reformat of the language of the page, but I suspect you would revert them. 97.114.113.56 (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If you can write something that is coherent, neutral and well-sourced, nobody's going to revert it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The as-is version that you mentioned didn't have any sources because you deleted all of the sources. Slow it down and lets talk this out, I expect that there is a lot of work to be done, lets all just take a deep breath. Juno (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

Discussion of dispute templates

  • a) The "Cyberbullying" category is not supported by any of the available sources.
  • b) The description of Andrew Sullivan as believing that "SJWs" believe that media should be censored to impact the ongoing cultural discourse and strongly advocate for the theory of white privilege is not supported by the given source.
  • c) KnowYourMeme is, by definition, not a reliable source — it is a source of entirely user-generated content and thus categorically fails to be acceptable here.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these issues, Cobbsaladin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject and the bigger picture

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

Opposition to social justice activism is probably the best way to describe this. Then again the term SJW gets applied to anybody left of center in terms of their politics. Why can't we just focus on the notable academic subjects? We have one for social justice. This article should be salted --109.148.127.93 (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To my mind, and in with the Forces piece, its the notion that these issues are window dressing for more. Either for a deeper political agenda, or as Rhododendrites put it "self-righteousness/sanctimony", as the end goal. Think liberalism/social justice:SJW::feminism:feminazi. Those who are grumbling about Suey Park are not grumbling about Thomas Aquinas. Juno (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed and Rhododendrites raises excellent questions. The lead as is doesn't make sense to me: a term for those who campaign against racism, sexism, etc. isn't objectively pejorative. Rather than extreme left I'd describe it as authoritarian left and largely internet-centric; so we're unlikely to find notable academic sources on issues that don't overlap with modern feminism (which is well studied.) Cobbsaladin (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
part of the issue is the lack of reliable sources talking about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I think I'll go back to the Forbes quote for the first sentence. It seems to do a great job encompassing the points that we discussed above. Juno (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Erik Kain's writings are a reliable source only for his own opinions; he is a WP:NEWSBLOGger and is not edited or otherwise fact-checked. We can use such a source to say that Erik Kain believes that's what an SJW is; we cannot use such a source to say "this is what an SJW is." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thats why it woiuld be in quotation marks. Juno (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, in the body of the article, absolutely we can include Erik Kain's opinion. But we're not going to privilege his opinion above all others by making it the article's lead paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So everyone agrees that the lead is quite flawed but I can't find anything more definitive. Does anyone have anything else out there from an RS that we could use? Juno (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that the lead is flawed; I think for an opening sentence it does a fine job describing the consensus of reliable sources: that the term is used to describe social justice activists, mostly by their opponents, and is almost always applied pejoratively. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
4 out of 4 of the editors who have commented all think the lead is flawed.
The lead currently says that SJWs are people who like social justice. This is overly broad. While pretty much everyone would call and SJW I don't think that anyone has ever applied the term to Thomas Aquinas. Not everyone who likes SJ is a SJW, and the opener needs to reflect this.
I'm fine to go with a source/quote other than Forbes (its just the best from an RS that I've seen so far) and I'm fine to put all sorts of modifiers around Kain's credentials but we need something that narrows down who SJWs are. Juno (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Watch your BLP violations and making assumptions about what "everyone" will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I can find literally no one who discusses the topic who does not think that fits the mold and I can find literally no one who has ever called Thomas Aquinas a SJW. Juno (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not an RS for anything besides his own opinion, and Erik Kain doesn't write for Forbes. He's a Forbes.com contributor, which is not at all the same thing. By the way, no, you're wrong about what "pretty much everyone" would do. The vast majority of people don't even use that phrase or that terminology. Its use is restricted to a subset of people who pejoratively apply it to another group of people they oppose.
There is no universally-agreed-upon definition of SJW, Juno — people who pejoratively describe other people don't get to define those other people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The Forbes version of the lead seems superior to me 1) because it relies on better ref and 2) because it actually explains why the term "Social Justice Warrior" is pejorative. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A Forbes.com contributor blogger is not a better ref, and the description is, at best, contentious.
It is instructive to note that Kain himself admits that the description is unsettled and contentious, with his statement that it is also viewed as meaning ...What you’re called whenever you talk about social justice issues when writing about games, even if you don’t mean to push an agenda or personally benefit. That is, Kain is acknowledging that those to whom the term is applied wildly disagree about its meaning. We can't privilege one of those meanings over the other. We should certainly explain in the text of the article what Kain thinks the people who use "SJW" mean by it, but adopting that viewpoint as our own is right out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, to me, it seems to go without saying that a term used as a pejorative would be contentious. I think it also goes without saying that such terms will be applied to people who do not at all fit the pejorative meaning, and also that people who are described pejoratively will tend to disagree with negative description applied to them (that seems to be the case with all pejoratives). I think the text you mention of it being applied in cases where target didn't mean to push an agenda also seems relevant and belongs in the article. But still, the Forbes quote version of the lead seems superior because it communicates to the reader why this phrase is pejorative and gives some insight into how the phrase is used as a pejorative, which seems to be useful and vital information for the lead.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
We can communicate why the phrase is pejorative without appearing to adopt the meaning ourselves. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we can, and the version you reverted seemed to do so nicely by using a direct quote and attributing it to it's source.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it didn't, because it privileged one person's opinion above all others in the article's lead, without any particular evidence that his opinion reflects the consensus of reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A: It didn't "privilege" a person's opinion, it quoted an author, in context, who is paid to white about these issues for an RS.
B: Its better than an opening sentence that is wrong, and that there is consensus to change. It doesn't have to be the Forbes source, but the lead can't go one saying "SJWs are people who like SJ", that is deliberately false. Juno (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate mention or no gamergate mention

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

The same issue here as with the article as a whole, no one is talking about the subject of the article, a pejorative phrase, in the context of gamergate or any other issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
, , , , . You were saying? Tutelary (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories: