Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

70% of this article is just alt-right ideary

This term only basis on the point that there are some people who uses progressism for virtue signaling. However, the article extends with tendency, blogs and other poor references, questionable presumptions and misleadings. The best solution might be to maintain the definition from the Oxford Living Dictionary, keep the story cases, and then fusion the three paragraphs with Virtue_signalling#Development_into_a_pejorative or Virtue_signalling#Notable_pejorative_uses. Cheers, --78.130.25.245 (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would Oxford Living Dictionary be a better source? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Because, a) it doesn't allow any ambiguity (unlike statements what people think and imply when they call someone a social justice warrior) and b)several wikipedia contributors, who were defending this article here claimed that it's the most unbiased and reliable definition.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course there will be ambiguity, per the original discussions about this term, this article should not just be a DICDEF (even though that is pretty much all it is) it was intended to be expounded upon by reliable sources. It's barely notable enough as a phrase outside of its current usage by a small (but vocal) niche of internet users to not reflect the opinions of what media commentary there is. Koncorde (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you consider 'reliable' only pro-SJ left-wing media (well, in America practically all media is pro-SJ biased). That's why by expanding this article only by using opinion of people, who themselves are SJW according to Oxford Dic definition, makes it overwelmingly biased.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You should have seen it before the vast majority of the opinion pieces were removed quite a while back. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 05:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? Whatever was written in the article earlier, doesn't change the fact that right now it mostly consists of SJW (again, Oxford definition here) opinion on what people who use SJW term think.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And? The only reason this article exists is because of its notability. Its notability is due to articles about the word in mainstream press (i.e. reliable secondary sources and tertiary sources). We can't say anything about the words without citing the claim. The claims are cited. If it was just the definition, it wouldn't have an article at all, that would be a Dictionary. Koncorde (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The pertinent info was kept, and the worst of the opinion stuff was removed. That being said, with highly charged topics like this one, a certain balance of opinion pieces from different viewpoints can be the best way to cover the topic and maintain NPOV. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think you understand what the alt-right is. The alt-right consists of white supremacists and racial nationalists, whereas this term is used by people of all political persuasions, including moderate liberals. If you want to criticize the article, please do so in an honest manner. 2001:569:7753:9B00:1C1F:1DA6:D387:877F (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, 'Alt-right' is a term so nebulous as to be almost meaningless, and is mainly thrown around as an insult to anyone who is further right on the political spectrum of whomever is making the accusation, so I can't blame the OP for that. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This lock is pointless

Before locking the article and avoiding vandalism, there should be minimally qualified content to protect. What's with this tunnel vision about SJW meaning one single thing (virtue signaling, which has its own article), and this huge discussion page going nowhere? The article itself mentions a (irrelevant) game meant to teach people about being defeated by exhaustion, and ironically that seems to be the strategy here. All the energy put into stating the obvious could be used for so much more in the community.

Here are two points I think should be improved in the article:

1) Expanding the definition beyond social validation. For instance, a SJW might push his agenda without a deeper thought about why (going with the tide, the so-called useful idiot), or he might fully believe what he preaches, case in which opposition would just label him as misguided - but still a SJW. A soldier is a soldier, no matter if he fights for his country, to save his own life or if he genuinely hates the enemy. SJWs are people who take social justice to extremes, and social capital is just one of the reasons one might engage into it for. Even the original meaning contradicts this simplistic approach of saying SJW accusations rely solely on the premise of virtue signaling.

2) A huge paragraph on Trump that has nothing to do with the rest of the entire article. Restating 3 or 4 times he's "a SJW candidate", or "the first presidential SJW", almost as if trying to really stick the message. Trump was the anti-SJW and anti-PC masses champion, so even if he fits the description of a SJW himself, in any bending the editors might try to apply, how can Trump be "the first" SJW campaigning? Other candidates are accused of virtue signaling, crocodile tears and fake charity all the time. Hillary (as irrelevant to the article as Trump, but she played his nemesis for a year or so, so that's a handy example) had her humanitarian organizations scrutinized over fake philanthropy and money laundering. All pro-progressivism governors around in Europe, Canada are often called SJWs, so I don't really understand this fixation with Trump. An attempt to revert the slur's effect, showing "conservatives can be SJW too!"? Okay, leave that to the media, Wikipedia is not for preaching.

I won't touch on or try to tip this article's obvious bias as I just assume there will always be more pro-progressivism people policing content online; all I'm asking is that the article is written in a way that explains things on a sufficiently broad scope and to avoid going on tirades about random events/personalities, I'm sure you don't go on Dark to add a paragraph about Trump because a thousand newspapers decided to describe his inauguration speech as "dark". I'd also argue the RPG too has little place in terms of relevancy, but at least it is pertinent and is under a clear cut category. 191.183.101.128 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody uses the phrase SJW to describe anyone outside of an incredibly small niche of the internet and political spectrum. The use of the term "SJW", and attempting to define it, is a nebulous load of crap at best because no two people using it agree it means any single thing. It's the insult du jour. It barely qualifies as a dictionary term, nevermind any content about it for an encyclopedia, but hey, everything's wikifiable these days if someone has an opinion on the internet.

Don't blame the editors here. The rules are being followed. Koncorde (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you're just repeating yourself. People above have already counter-argued about some of these views, so reply them instead if you want to be right, I have no interest in it. The fact is the article was created and is not deleted, so it could at least be improved. I made a new, separate discussion to try and address specific, objective points:

1) The definition given is too narrow, given how the term is diversely employed (you seem to agree on that);

2) The focus on Trump adds little to the page and reeks of cherry-picking, as lots and lots of politicians have been called SJW along the way. I believe persistent use of misquoted items, and/or the mass import of excessive critical comments from the uninformed press can lend undue weight to items that are little more than a hysterical media reponse backed by a lunatic fringe.

As for people complaining about YouTubers and other webcelebrities not being accepted as reliable sources, I think a better approach would be to fit (some of) them in the Popular Culture section, if what they said was echoed by the media. Stuff like Pewdiepie against the Wallstreet Journal and whatnot (just an example, I don't think the term SJW came up then). 191.183.101.128 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You've already made that case for widening, and again, this isn't going to work. Find reliable sources which specifically discuss the usage of the term and support the changes you want to make. If no such summary source can be found, the reaffirms that this term is too nebulous to be meaningful. It means whatever is convenient to the person using it. Having a vague definition isn't the same as having a wide definition.

Passing examples of usage are not suitable either, because compiling examples would be original research. Sources should substantially be about the phrase itself, not just use the phrase in an interesting or novel way. Youtubers do not belong in the WP:IPC section without reliable sources explaining why this is significant to the topic. This is the general practice for these sections on Wikipedia, although it's unevenly applied.

I agree that the Trump section should be summarized by a non-opinion source about this usage. Since this is a single paragraph, and every opinion is attributed, there's no rush and this can be discussed further, however. Grayfell (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Relax 191.183.101.128talk. People, who curate this article consider only pro-SJW sources to be reliable. And these sources state that people who use SJW term are just a bunch of trolls, who obviously can't be reliable. It's self-reassuring loop.--87.239.38.118 (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We follow Wikipedia policy on this article, and the hundreds of others we have contributed to over the last 13+ years. This article is the least important of any of them, and most of the editors efforts here have been to minimise the inclusion from any side of not notable opinion from people suffering from unwarranted self importance. Koncorde (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Reactionary justice warrior

Please see reactionary justice warrior (a very recent article, may need work or deletion)... —PaleoNeonate – 01:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did a search and couldn't find anything, so there doesn't appear to be any indication of notability. I took it to AfD. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Roth quote

I've removed the lengthy quote from Eli Roth about his film The Green Inferno (diff). There was no context provided for Roth's statements; Wikipedia isn't meant to be an advertising platform or an indiscriminate collection of all the times someone has used a phrase in an interview. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018

Change "According to David A. French, the aims of social justice warriors are opposed to those of the Christian right."(line 12) to "According to David A. French, the aims of social justice warriors are opposed to those of the Christian right particularly on the issue of abortion. This is the debate on if the act of abortion should be allowed to be carried through. Sigel, Reva B (1995) "Abortion as a Sex Equality Right: Its Basis in Feminist Theory"" Because the statement is not fully clear and specific.Punmaster99 (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Nathan Samms Punmaster99 (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyplace in French's column where he writes about abortion, birth control, reproductive rights, or anything else that could be construed as "the issue of abortion". We can't put words in his mouth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification and objectivity of key definition

A social justice warrior, objectively speaking, is anybody attempting to inject suggestions or descriptions of intentional political activity into a non-political venue, most frequently in online social media, without regard for the political subject matter. These activities could be calls for boycotts or recruitment for participation, for example. By indicating specific political examples in the definition it paints the term in a certain light or political leaning that does not always accurately reflect the described activities.

The problematic nature of a social justice warrior, hence the graduation to a pejorative, is that many people dislike the distraction of discussing personal politics in non-political areas. Since the term social justice warrior describes politics plus some form of activity it is essentially political activism. This is, in many cases, perceived to be a form of trolling even though the political subject matter is agreeable to the community of context.

In order for this page to be valid it needs to define the term in reflection to a behavior and activity both as a pejorative and not so, but it must do so completely separated from politics.

Austincheney (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You'll want to find some reliable sources backing up this definition you're presenting. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

For a wonderful example of objectivity in a related subject please see the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

As for examples (simple google search):

* https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

* https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/16811/social+justice+warrior

* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d2ca2febed99

*To call someone a “social justice warrior” in this context is to label that person as an invading force, a target for the white blood cells. They are unwelcome outsiders, seen as threats to the health of the entire body.* - Washington Post article above

The goal here is to achieve a definition and description of a term opposed to any kind of evaluation upon expressions thereof. Definitions are best when applied objectively. So, let's consider objectivity logically. In one case a racist white supremacist may wish to organize people into a rally or advertise their political stance. While that particular political point of view is abhorrent to many it is a form of political activism with regard to a social issue that a person could regard as a form of social justice. The difference between that particular political stance versus something progressive, such as advocating for women's equality, is purely subjective. That subjectivity clouds any attempt to objectively describe the given subject. It is the quality and thoroughness of such a description that is most important in a setting such as an encyclopedia.

-AustinCheney

---

Two reliable sources for SJW definition: Oxford dictionary: [1]

social justice warrior

NOUN

derogatory, informal

A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.

‘these social justice warriors want to apply their politically correct standards and rules to others' speech’

More example sentences

‘Just because I agree with representation in games, I've been associated with social justice warriors leading ::to some horrible comments the other day.’

‘We get it, you hate social justice warriors, whatever you perceive those to be.’

‘The leadership has been changed from military warriors to social justice warriors.’

‘I'm not claiming to know the answers, but you don't have to be a social justice warrior to notice something is going very wrong somewhere.’

‘Some of them admit they're afraid that social justice warriors will ruin video games.’

‘Many of the site's users have blamed a conspiracy of social justice warriors: PC campaigners who, they claim, are too easily offended.’

‘Of course such statistics and stories will forever be dismissed by social justice warriors.’

‘Funny how it's social justice warrior types such as yourself that exude the most hatred and malcontent for others.’

‘I think social justice warriors like you need to relax and enjoy life.’

‘I don't want to come off as a social justice warrior but we fight on a daily basis for Internet freedoms.’

WASHINGTON POST: [2]

"To call someone a “social justice warrior” in this context is to label that person as an invading force, a target for the white blood cells. They are unwelcome outsiders, seen as threats to the health of the entire body."

You can see a similar definition in Quora link [3] which I suppose is not a RS. But you can see from there that this is not something I have been making up as I go. Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

First, you need to learn how to comment and thread your replies. I fixed the malformed edit request and your indentions this time. See Thread and TalkNew for future comments. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor are dictionaries reliable sources. Because various Gamergaters want to redefine the term, doesn't make it redefined. The other descriptions form those aspects are already given, you don't get to cherry-pick through terms to push a POV. So, please stop edit warring and get consensus before adding controversial material into articles. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources, which already exist in the article, provide the meaning that you have tried to add. Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2018

Personal validation change to 'Social validation' Ryanconnaughton (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: As the second paragraph of the "Pejorative use" section of the article explains, "personal validation" is the phrase used by the attached source. Please get consensus for any changes before using a requested edit template. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Pejorative is only half the story

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics.

The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation [and lacking] deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.

It is true, at one end of the usage spectrum, that SJW is bandied about like "pinko" was, once upon a time. But at the other end of the spectrum, SJW reads closer to "communist", which is pejorative when uttered by some lips, in some circumstances, but far from pejorative in other circumstances, where it mostly reads as a descriptive near synonym for "socialist brotherhood" (which Christopher Hitchens, among others, was quick to call his own); after 1968, the synonymy of these terms went to the dogs, but that was a late development.

In many contexts, SJW is used to invoke the recent phenomena of progressive values taken to an unhealthy extreme, typically on university campuses, with Marxist leanings among the faculty (outside of the STEM branch), who largely adhere to a Byzantine code of post-modern subjectivity (for which the political Coat of Arms is intersectionality) and where the young, impressionable students have ensconced themselves in a PC-hazardous, trigger-warning bubble, which was never previously the goal of liberal education, and where these naive students are sometimes radicalized by "progressive" wolves in sheep's clothing.

Is free speech a progressive value? What then of deplatforming?

Are men and women identical? Or is biological denialism a real thing?

(Biological denialism can reach a disingenuous pitch, but that's far from the norm. Might I point out, feminist culture has it's own internal clique decrying biological denialism. The inherently combative social equation rape equals power equals violence equals subjugation garners no support from professional primatologists such as Robert Sapolsky, nor I suspect, from Jane Goodall, either, who mainly see a tried-and-true reproductive strategy that's come down to us from the ages, with a minimum of 60 million years logged on the odometer; when you decide to refract this through the patriarchy as the origin story—what, maybe 8000 years old in anything like its current form—then the 'disingenuous' slander starts to fly, quite apart from issues SJW.)

To my ear, SJW is far less pejorative than "snowflake", which is a modernization of "pansy" and nothing more (nobody runs around claiming membership in a proud snowflake community, but people do run around claiming to be on the side of social justice).

Social justice, good; social justice warrior, a good thing, radicalized, and perhaps taken a step or two too far.

Flower child originated as a synonym for hippie, especially among the idealistic young people who gathered in San Francisco and the surrounding area during the Summer of Love in 1967. It was the custom of "flower children" to wear and distribute flowers or floral-themed decorations to symbolize ideals of universal belonging, peace, and love. The mass media picked up on the term and used it to refer in a broad sense to any hippie. Flower children were also associated with the flower power political movement, which originated in ideas written by Allen Ginsberg in 1965.

This has largely the same overtones of a good thing, perhaps taken too far. I suppose the SJW culture could be relabeled as "justice jihadis". There's your "flower power" for modern ears.

I concede that SJW is more inherently pejorative than "flower child", but it still occupies the full extent of the same space, in largely the same debate. Without SJW, what neutral term unites the affairs of Evergreen State College with those of Wilfred Laurier?

I did an immediate double face-palm the first time I saw the term "SJW" injected on a discussion forum I've inhabited for years, knowing that the tone of discourse was doomed for a decade or more. The term just shrieked "the cat is belled, I can stop thinking now". When SJW is used in conversations among those who are up for hard discussion, rather than looking for an easy escape from actual thought, it's not terribly pejorative at all (I wouldn't call it complementary, but then in most situations I wouldn't call "atheist" complementary, either, only what can you really do?). Among the thinking crowd, "warrior" is tacked on to signal the problem of progressive values taken to an unreasonable extreme, and not to denigrate progressive values as an underlying good, or even to sully the motives of those involved, though it may shade them as naive (however, on the matter of the radicalized nucleus, no holds barred).

Just as one example, Bret Weinstein identifies himself as a progressive liberal, and he's certainly opposed to the political excesses of SJW culture, whether he has applied this term to the debate himself, or not.

As I see it, any group of people possessed of smug, barbed expressions such as "check your privilege" is not likely to be branded with an entirely comfortable crown. It devolves into an outright disinformation campaign to brand every such collective term as inherently pejorative, as if making your own bed (and having to lie in it) had never before been witnessed as a ruling dynamic in human culture.

That's the view, in any case, from a sober progressive. — MaxEnt 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So, what changes are you proposing for the article and, more importantly, what sources do you wish include as a basis for the changes? CIreland (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

SJW is a nebulous term, because as an insult it has almost nothing to do with actual social justice. Unfortunately your argument seems to assume there is some line in the sand, when the reality is that the SJW epithet is just cast around against anyone who seems to have a different position, or is more strident, or even just happens to be polite, or respectful. There is no one size fits all to the accusations because everybody using the term has their own focus group to crticise.

The claim of being an SJW is currently an almost 100% reactionary accusation. We reference those people trying to reclaim it, but the truth is nobody ever really used it enough internally to make this plausible. Koncorde (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggest adding "Snowflake" to the related terms/see also

The slang "snowflake" is very often used in reference to the same group of people that are referred to as SJWs in general in my experience. It seems rarely directed toward conservatives and often is associated with people who behave in ways considered inappropriate or excessive, especially about things associated with "social justice". In fact, the incident at Yale that sort of popularized the term featured a group of students reacting emotionally toward a teacher who opposed having the college directly intervene to prevent Halloween costumes that may be considered offensive or cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.55.226.17 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see it happening.

• First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

• Second, my understanding of the terms/concepts is that they are entirely different. "SJW" has come to indicate either (a) a self-appointed "activist" out to make the entire world a better place or (b) a "hero" who leaps to the aid of someone (sometimes to the annoyance of the "victim") in hopes of praise from that person or various observers for the "bravery" display; meanwhile, "snowflake" indicates someone who claims emotional distress when faced with an opinion or fact they don't like. Just because the sort of person who needs to rely heavily on one term will also probably heavily rely upon the other in order to denigrate perceived enemies (real or imaginary) does not indicate the words are identical, or even necessarily related.

• Third, without at least one credible source, it's at least synthesis and likely original research.

So, probably not.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It was already added several weeks ago by someone else. This came up once before, but with the idea that the term should be explained in the article. I think that would require reliable sources explaining the connection. For a see also, though, I don't see a problem. They are both pejorative terms from the same time period, used by similar groups, in similar contexts. Since the standards for MOS:SEEALSO sections are comparatively more subjective, it seems like a reasonable addition to me, but also not worth quibbling over. Is it useful to readers? Maybe. Is it neutral to include it? Eh, probably. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

dead links

some of the sources are dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.197.234 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggest removing or amending that accusation "carries implications" of disingenuousness.

In common usage, this phrase (when used as an accusation) does not seem to carry an implication that the person is disingenuous. It seems to imply the opposite - that the person has strong progressive convictions and advocates for them without compromise.

The pejorative aspect seems more closely related to intensity/stridency rather than sincerity.

Icewater~enwiki (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we'd need examples of people who call themselves SJWs (and a reliable source about that). —PaleoNeonate – 01:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Identity politics

Wouldn't SJW be anti-identity politics? Identity politics commonly is associated with White Nationalism, not racial equality movements. Or sexual equality movements. All you have to do is google Identity Politics and white nationalism and you see the common association. When you look up racial equality and identity politics it still goes to just discussions about white nationalism using it. There isn't that connotation of racial justice ='s identity politics as it has been historically used. One author's opinion as a reference doesn't make it a fact in this case to be used for a wiki definition. The tying of SJW to identity politics should be removed. Seems the White Nationalists muddied the waters again, which has been part of their strategy in the last decade or so. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what Identity Politics is, but it has historically been about increasing the recognition and rights for marginalised groups by creating a collective identity. For example, Black Lives Matter is an example of identity politics and would be seen as something supported by SJW's (effectively creating an identity all people should be able to identify with and recognise their complaints).

All Lives Matter in contrast isn't identity politics as it represents the status quo and is a response to the perception that somehow non-Black lives are now worth less because caring is a zero-sum game. All Lives Matter (and to a similar extent Blue Lives Matter) was effectively signal boosted by the right, alt-right etc as a form of culture war which started to, and indeed you could argue has become, as much about Identity Politics as the original concept (Blue Lives more so maybe) - but in truth is just an established reaction by entrenched political views. "White nationalism" is a majority, the default and standard of white western society. The current rise of white nationalism is built around the concept of a silent majority, disenfranchisement or a perceived lesser status of the "white race" in contrast to all the other races in current political discourse (The Tea Party being an early example).

In short, "white identity politics" is not your usual garden variety identity politics. It is using many of the same code words, structures etc but is largely an attempt to resist progressive identity politics through entrenched political affiliations, tropes and race baiting. Koncorde (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

what on earth does WOKE and CALL-OUT CULTURE have to do with the subject of this article?

Nothing and references to them should be removed. Bacondrum (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the 3 references. —Srid^🍁 00:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This one? https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/quiet-revolution/201909/be-or-not-be-woke that's a misrepresentation of the content of a blog entry, an opinion, on a blog. And still doesn't demonstrate that this is a widely held view, it's just some random opinion. Its inclusion feels very much like POV pushing. The other three are using the term themselves or merely mentioning it. It doesn't belong here, its cruft. You seem intent on drawing these subjects into as many vaguely related culture war articles as possible. Bacondrum (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the connection. It seems like WP:SYNTH - these are just random opinion pieces that happen to be using both words. --Aquillion (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious claims/phrasing

I believe that some recent good faith additions are unintentionally, but blatantly bias, and do not simply describe the subject but rather state as fact the negative attributes of those this term is used to denigrate. I also believe the citations used to do so are poor references for such bold claims, like suggesting that progressives are:

"pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

It reads as bias opinion and a misrepresentation of the source.

The same editor also added tangentially related topics (that might be appropriate in the see also section) to the lede claiming that: "It has been associated with being "woke" and call-out culture" they've added random quotes from Obama, Vice magazine contributors, some super obscure game etc. I feel like these and other recent edits are using POV language and drawing in as many negatives as possible rather than objectively describing the subject - a pejorative term used by detractors to describe progressives.

I believe the language needs to be more neutral and reflect the sources, some claims are undue and/or based on low quality sources. What do other editors think? Bacondrum (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Article was ballooned by a dedicated editor a few years back (see March 2016 version) into a monster of quotations and synthesis. It was culled back, but fundamentally the issue is always (as you identify) that the subject matter is a culture war rather than something actually documented. Most subject matter about "SJW" will only be from Op-Ed or similar because that is largely the only sources discussing the actual use and meaning of a term. As such the article has been sat in a generally confused state for some time with occasional editors trying to make wholesale changes and / or fundamentally change meanings or intent (or shoehorn stuff in). Koncorde (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde Thanks for your feedback, I personally find these culture war articles are barely backed up by enough reliable sources to justify their existence. Any thoughts on the lede in particular? I feel that this is opinion and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, as though it is fact: while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments. as does this: It has been associated with being "woke" and call-out culture Bacondrum (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Woke / Call Out Culture etc like any other buzz words could be linked to dozens of subjects. I wouldn't object to them being added as "See Also" items at the bottom of the page, but they would need proper sourcing for inclusion here (and I had same concerns as yourself when I saw them added).

As for the opening line, per section above this - yes I agree entirely. Much of the phrase is opinion, the only factual thing we have is the Oxford Living Dictionary definition but it requires OR to parse it with the other sources because it's so vague. Hence the discussion over the original lede which segregated the two claims. Koncorde (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the well reasoned and articulate feedback. I'm in complete agreement. Bacondrum (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Sorry, I didn't realise. Hopefully that fixes it. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It's there now, thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

resolved by other editors Bacondrum (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting secondary sources

@Bacondrum: - You first removed the "while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction and engaging in disingenuous arguments" part in the lede as part of another change (i.e., without giving a reason). I added it back. Then you removed it [4] saying it "it does not reflect the source" when it is fact a direct quotation. Your remove has been challenged. Do not remove again without establishing consensus here. —Srid^🍁 21:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I advice you not to edit war on this change, and instead cooperate here in the Talk page. Your edit has been challenged. —Srid^🍁 21:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, your edits over the last few days have changed the meaning of many sentences, and in some cases I was planning to revert but hadn't had chance to. Much of what Bacondrum was changing appears to be related directly to stuff that you amended. For example the original lede stated:

"Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism,[1][2] as well as identity politics.[3] The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[5]"

The reason for the second sentence is that there is no link between the accusation, and the pejorative term and we are dealing with two distinct threads. One, the living english dictionary definition and secondly the intent. In effect, someone calling someone else an SJW is not making any actual rational attempt to recognise that the person making the claim actually does really hold those perspectives and opinions. To quote the source provided "In other words, SJWs don’t hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that’s not a real category of people. It’s simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists. It’s awfully convenient to have a term at the ready to dismiss women who bring up sexism, as in, "You don’t really care. As an SJW, you’re just taking up this cause to make yourself look good!"

Your amendment resulted in the below

"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for people promoting socially progressive views (including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism,[1][2] as well as identity politics[3]) while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction[4] and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[5]

This fundamentally changes both the intent of the term, and its understanding in the sources by merging two entirely different interpretations synthetically. Koncorde (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. To be fair, you did not address all of the lede, though. This source[5] says The second term often employed is that of the ‘social justice warrior’, to imply that the target of the term is a wishy-washy left-wing liberal who seeks to engage in the discussion for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction.. Note the part "personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction", which is used more or less verbatim in the lede. I find that this qualifier adds the much needed context to the term, which is not used towards *all* people with socially progressive views, rather only towards a certain subset (exhibiting the quoted qualities). —Srid^🍁 21:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

All of that taken into account, here's the new lede I'd go with: ""Social justice warrior" (SJW) is an informal, derogatory noun referring to people who hold socially progressive views, while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction". —Srid^🍁 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am addressing all of the lede. I am stating that there are two separate elements. One is the negative connotation of someone promoting socially progressive views. The second is the accusation that they are doing so for personal validation. The citation you just gave spells this out by stating "imply that the target of the term is a wishy-washy left-wing liberal". In short there is no evidence that all SJW's are seeking personal validation. The crux of the pejorative sense is the idea that you are being accused of being disingenuous regardless of whether or not it is true. Koncorde (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises from the fundamental misconception that the term is applied towards any and all people that hold socially progressive views. Do you have any reliable source that explicitly states this? —Srid^🍁 22:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That isn't the confusion at all, and I am not sure I can argue for a position or cite something I don't believe is the case. The only confusion is that instead of making the pejorative "imply" or "accuse" the validation aspect of the insult your changes make it actually state the targets only argue for personal validation reasons. That is not supported by the sources. The OEL states only the brief outline, and all others make it clear that it is a term used against people to de-legitimise their arguments by suggesting that they are intrinsically dishonest. Koncorde (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your point or stance here. Can you state what the lede should be in your own words so I better understand what exactly you are arguing for? —Srid^🍁 22:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A concise version of original lede would be:

"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

Alternatively a change to existing lede (which is a bit DICDEF at the moment, but also WP:SYNTH, and using the term "hold" when the implication is one of being strident and argumentative) might be:

"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is an informal, derogatory noun for people who promote socially progressive views suggesting that they are motivated by personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction"

But this is not favoured by any stretch of the imagination. Koncorde (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Your lede (1) is not representative of the sources, because its first sentence when read on its own implies that the term applies to wiktionary:any and all individuals promoting socially progressive views (which you yourself do not believe to be the case anyway). This is why I had to "merge" the two statements, so that the term is more narrowly applied to a subset of individuals promoting socially progressive views who are particularly accused of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated convention (and thereby engages in disingenuous arguments). To that end, I'd go with the lede (2). It is not however WP:SYNTH as the second part of the sentence literally quotes the phrases in the source. —Srid^🍁 23:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

(1). No, it implies that it can be used as a pejorative against anyone promoting socially progressive views, and then gives clarifications of what those views may be. Second sentence clarifies what the usage infers about the individuals accused based on other sources.

Merging is the act of WP:SYNTH. To quote "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". To which I point that, (2). Your lede does not represent the only remaining source being used inline: "to imply that the target of the term is a wishy-washy left-wing liberal who seeks to engage in the discussion for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction" which specifically makes reference to the idea of the accusation being "implied". If you wanted to wikify that into a sentence it would come out as:

"Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term to imply a liberal is engaging in disingenuous arguments for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"

This definition is distinct, still, from the OEL's which is referenced in the Ohlheiser article and broadly refers to the pejorative being able to be used against "A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views" with no qualification. I have no issue if we use or don't use the OEL foundation, but we must reference the critical element which is the implied / accused intent behind the "progressive" or "liberal" if we are using the other sourcing. Koncorde (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The OEL definition is too broad, and if the lede is gonna rely on it, we might as well merge it with social justice! I wouldn't use the OEL definition, given its broadness and thus meaningless for use here. Your lede (3) sounds fine too; I never objected to the use of "imply" anyway; even though my own phrasing might have been a little too strict. —Srid^🍁 23:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"referring to people who hold socially progressive views, while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction" Is a statement of fact, like it's a fact that SJW's hold socially progressive views, while pursuing personal validation in place of deep-seated conviction. However, it is not a fact, merely opinion and MUST BE REMOVED as it is galling and blatant bias. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe we already went past that, and that Koncorde and I have arrived at a consensus to switch the lede to: ""Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative term to imply a liberal is engaging in disingenuous arguments for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction"". —Srid^🍁 00:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Thanks. Progressives is better wording than liberals, liberal has numerous meanings in English speaking countries...here in Australia it generally describes conservatives. Many progressives loath liberalism. Bacondrum (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

:"Liberal" was just me being literal to the source wording (a US journal) to demonstrate why if we use it, we must also ensure we represent that the accusation implies a level of disbelief on the part of the progressive in their own arguments.

The original pejorative meaning (dating back to Livejournal and other blogging sites) actually was a bit more nuanced, describing it as not a disingenuous argument, but more a case that the people making the argument misunderstand the underpinning reasoning and so are therefore making arguments they can't believe in (as they are not backed up by the ideology they purport to support). In other words; person A stridently follows cause X and believes in opinion B because they believe that it is correct to do based upon their flawed understanding of C. They accuse everyone who doesn't have an equally flawed understanding of being racist / insensitive etc. In effect they were Keyboard Warriors for whatever cause they objectively believed in, to the detriment of the actual argument. Unfortunately sourcing for this version is weak (if at all) beyond the reference by Ohlheiser to Urban Dictionary (hence why that was referenced originally). Koncorde (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In any case, let's just slow down, maybe? Comparing this to the lead before the dispute started, I don't think it's improved overall, so I've reverted back to the older lead for now. Can we discuss individual suggestions for changes from there? I particularly object to the removal of the fact that the term is used to people who promote socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, since that's something almost all the sources focus on. I think the summary of what is negative about it is fine when worded as The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments, but that it has to be worded extremely cautiously given how many of the sources are dubious about its usage (ie. they don't feel its usage is actually connected to those things at all, but to ideological disagreement.) "Implies" is therefore better. --Aquillion (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it had just been phrased in a tendentious manner previously. Bacondrum (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

I don't care which version stays, but edit warring like that is unacceptable. Way past 3RR for both users. I've {{pp-dispute}} protected the page for 48 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent attempt to insert change to lede: "they believe are"

The change is Original research. "Progressivism" is understood and well defined. The accusation that something progressive is somehow regressive, such as PC, would require sourcing that is clearly linked and associated to the subject matter. This is the same as claims that progressives want censorship or any other personal opinion you are seeking to insert. This is not the article to make such arguments, and neither is Wikipedia in general somewhere for you to WP:SOAPBOX about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Koncorde (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Iatros1980:, the page you want is this one, not my own talk page. There's really not much to say about this; "feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism" are socially progressive values. There's no wiggle room here for maybe they are, or they kinda are, or your suggested views they consider to be qualifier. This is about as daft as saying "right-winger is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes views they consider to be conservative, such as supply-side economics, states' rights, and traditional family values. Those ARE conservative values, they don't need to be qualified by personal consideration. Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits...

changed the lead sentence from
"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, to
"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who aggressively or combatively advertises socially progressive views,
three times. The edits were reverted by 3 other individual editors because the added adjectives were pejorative, violated WP:NPOV, etc. The change from the original wording was not discussed on this talk page by the changing editor.
The sentence was then changed a 4th time, this latest time changed from
"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, to
"Social justice warrior" (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who heralds socially progressive views,
Let's discuss this on the article's talk page like we're supposed to. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior and the idea that "warrior" means "aggressive"

So there have been a series of attempts to change the intro again, this time around changing the idea that SJW is a pejorative that is ONLY applied to people with progressive ideas who voice them aggressively (or words to that effect). This is retread of earlier arguments really which I will summarise as: the charge of being an SJW does not require the person being accused to be progressive, liberal, or even advocating anything. It is a pejorative used to bracket and / all progressive ideas and people representing them under one blanket term. It is a euphemistic term that holds a particular resonance amongst a certain cadre of internet dwellers and conservative YouTubers. The argument that the use of the word "warrior" indicates anything is based upon the old internet-personality-meme of the "keyboard warrior". If the two were linked by a reliable source (or if in general a reliable source stated as much) then we would be able to infer that the accusation is that the person promoting the beliefs is doing so aggressively. However they don't, because it's just a slur. Against anyone or anything perceived to be progressive and / unwarranted. Which, for the record, has included things like the inclusion of gay characters in games, the temporary elevation of a female to the role of Thor, and similar instances where at no point has there been any aggression - but the charge has been made that Bioware / Marvel etc have been "SJW". In the absence of a reliable source, the current wording is accurate, and certainly not improved by the changes put forward. Koncorde (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

• Leave as is - I've only ever come across it used as a pejorative for progressives. Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Separate sections for pejorative meaning and description, although description includes pejorative meaning as well

This seems to make the article over-balanced. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Doug, not sure I follow what you are trying to say. Koncorde (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Think I have worked out what you mean Doug. Have adjusted the intro a touch to try and reduce the duplication in the lede; but yes the article is a bit upside down and inside out. I think as a result of a batch of well-intentioned edits a while back to re-compose but also cull cruft. Koncorde (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Footers & Categories

I have removed the Footers and a few Categories that seemed unrelated to subject, or unclear inclusion criteria. Summed up as below. Happy to be corrected.

1. Feminism: all subjects in that portal are related to feminism. Be that historical, cultural, social, political etc. This article is about a pejorative about some people who may or may not be feminist. I can see how it might have been added, but I can't see how it is actually related.
2. Human rights: cannot see any link at all to this portal. Someone possibly saw the idea of Social Justice being mentioned as part of its original meaning, but given its current interpretation it is unlikely to ever recover without some WP:CRYSTAL. Can't see anyone coming to a pejorative looking to seek out information about "human rights"?
3. Alt Right: This one may actually be relevant as the Alt Right footer does include "memes" some of which pre-date the idea of an Alt Right? Of the Footers I have removed this one seems the most appropriate and have least issue with including. I may even self correct on this one in the meantime.

Categories:

1. Progressivism: Per Feminism. This is about a slur, so not clear how this is linked to the cause.
2. Social Critics: This is a category linked to all individual people that are considered social criticis, not a pejorative.
3. Social liberalism: Per Progressivism.
4. Social justice: Per Progressivism.

For those that remain:

1. Criticism of feminism: weakly associated. It isn't much of a "criticism".
2. Criticism of political correctness: weakly associated, per above.
3. Pejorative terms for people: Seems fine.
4. Political metaphors referring to people: Not sure. Is this really a political metaphor? The rest of the metaphors in the category are very different to this one. Metaphors referring to people may be more relevant.
5. Political neologisms: The inclusion criteria appears to be a bit clearer.
6. Social commentary: Can't see any link.
7. Words coined in the 1990s: I mean, maybe?
8. Identity politics in the United States: Not sure about this either. I can see "Cuckservative" and "Bernie Bro" have also been added to that category but not clear otherwise what this category is about.

Also it seems a few of these may well be subcategories of the same overarching category. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes I agree with your assessment. Criticism of feminism, Criticism of political correctness, Social commentary, Words coined in the 1990s and Identity politics in the United States don't belong there, seems rather POV to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Some new sources, saving here to incorporate later

1. Miriam Webster "Words we're watching"
2. Opinion of Cathy Young. Worth considering
3. Fee.org? Not sure if reliable Koncorde (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Number one is worth a look, the other two are not reliable. Number two is hyperbolic partisan opinion, essentially a rant. Number three is the opinion of some unknown undergrad writing for a right-wing think tank. Bacondrum (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Number 2/3 I thought would be useful for those exact reasons. We have other opinion pieces in from Allegri etc and someone intrinsically linked with the anti-fem / shrill fem argument would be useful reinforcement of the "social justice warrior as a pejorative" stance as reinforcement reflecting the other "side". Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be using any opinion as per WP:OPINION. Bacondrum (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:OPINION says "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: 1. Who advocates the point of view 2. What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)" Which is not a "shouldn't be using" but a clear "we should be attributing". As Cathy Young is relatively well known for her shitposting on feminism and opining on anything Gamergate related, I don't see a particular issue with the inclusion of a verifiable opinion, especially given their opinion is going to be exactly what we have already written. Koncorde (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but we definitely shouldn't use her to cite statements of fact, only her own words, properly attributed. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Anti-racism Cancel culture Hashtag activism Political correctness Slacktivism Snowflake Virtue signalling The one and only fred (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Unclear what you want us to do? Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2020 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Character assassination in See also

I think it's appropriate. Check the amount of lies that were poured at Richard Stallman all over the mass and social media last year. --AVRS (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't see the connection. In what sense? Do you mean calling someone an SJW is a form of character assassination? I reckon it's just an insult rather than character assassination. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a link to "Call-out culture", which I think is meant to be what SJWs do, not what calling someone an SJW is. There is also a link to Anti-racism, which most likely is not meant to be something directly against SJWs, even if "non-white" (that's ambiguous) racists may mask themselves as SJWs. Character assassination and cancellation is what SJWs did or tried to do to Stallman. --AVRS (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense, I can't understand what you getting at. Social justice warrior is an pejorative neologism, "they" don't do anything. I think you might be drawing a very long bow, but then I'm not 100% sure I get what you mean. I assume Call-out culture was included because its a similar neologism that became popular around the time SJW came into use, used in similar context. We are not here to promote or present an opinion on the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm with Bacondrum here. This is clearly an article about a term. There are no "they" except in the eyes of some people who don't like certain social positions. ~Unless of course you mean calling a person an SJW is character assassination, but I think that's over the top. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why "warrior"?

In the definition of the SJW the most obvious element was missing: a SJW is alleged to make war on others not holding the same views. One does not need references to articles or books to make this point.Retal (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that isn't in any sources. The accusation is described as being disingenuous. For instance Miriam Websters article on the subject suggests (as we do) that "often mocking term for one who is seen as overly progressive or left-wing" and "Social justice warrior and SJW are typically used with sardonic application, referring to a person who is seen as overly enthusiastic about issues of fairness in the treatment of matters of race, gender, or identity." There is no inference of a warlike state of mind, or aggressiveness, which is part of the ironic nature of its usage. An actual "Social Justice Warrior" is someone who is genuinely a warrior for social justice - but this usage has all but ceased. The pejorative "Social Justice Warrior" or "SJW" in contrast is just a snarky attack term. Koncorde (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is plain nonsense to suggest that a SJW is not, in a metaphorical sense, a warrior, or "sardonically" viewed as such a warrior, since otherwise the expression could never have come up; and this origin of the term is what I was trying to explain, as it was not yet mentioned in the article. What some would benevolently describe as "overly enthusiastic", is apparently experienced by others as "overly assertive" and "aggressive". Why talk around this? We all know the often violent nature of exchanges around race, gender, and identity issues, just as we all know the term "culture wars". Also, I don't think a Wikipedia article should depend so completely on the Merriam Webster or whatever other dictionary, since dictionary definitions and explanations may well be incomplete. So, I intend to restore a brief discussion of the "warrior" element to the article. Perhaps you have a suggestion as to how this could be done, instead of keeping deleting my modest contribution?Retal (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Retal hey mate, regardless of the opposing arguments, numerous editors have objected to your proposed edit. You've been warned about edit warring. Restore that content again without consensus and you'll almost certainly receive a block. Please work towards consensus here instead. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss any addition, so long as it is supported by reliable sources. The reliable sources clearly describe the idea that someone is "overly enthusiastic" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. The original meaning of the term "social-justice warrior" as applied to Michel Chartrand for instance is making an unironic reference to the idea of Chartrand fighting for social-justice - which is a world away from its use in the last half decade.

Further, we don't even use the Merriam Webster article I referenced. I picked it specifically because of that reason, to check that there had not been some change in perspective by authoritative sources on the meaning of words. If you have reliable sources discussing its meaning

Finally, the use of "warrior" in the context of internet flame wars or similar long predates its usage in the term SJW (at least dating back to the early 90's concept of a keyboard warrior). Such behaviour is described as someone who posts angry messages or likes to get into arguments on the internet[6], or a person who posts highly opinionated text and images online in an aggressive or abusive manner, often without revealing his or her own identity.[7]. If such usage was intended, it would be documented using similar language you would expect, but it isn't (or where it is, it's in opinion pieces by people such as Cathy Young). Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• I object to the claim being added, it's one editors unsourced opinion. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not see these "numerous editors" nor did I personally receive any warning. Also, I hate people removing my text without discussion; is censorship what you call "working towards consensus"? Take the trouble to read the last sentence of my previous reaction and you will find that I, for my part, am already working towards consensus. So stop playing the bully.Retal (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you make yourself aware of the process of WP:BRD process. You are at the Discuss stage:

• Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) stated in his reversion: Sources do not say "aggressively".

I said in my reversion: Not in the sources.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs) stated: Again, not supported by the source.

Each of us have raised the exact same concern. Bacondrum has since repeated the same concern: it's one editors unsourced opinion

Please read the page on WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH for further background why unsourced opinion is challenged and removed, especially if it conflicts with established reliable sources. This is not bullying, this is basic process. Koncorde (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Retal Okay, you've had a friendly warning, now here's the firm one. Please familiarise yourself with guidelines, competency is required. First off - As Koncorde has pointed out, EvergreenFir, Koncorde, NorthBySouthBaranof and myself have all objected to your additions. Edit summaries are not appropriate places for discussing content disputes, talk pages are where that takes place, please see WP:BRD and WP:TALKPAGE for relevant guidelines. Second - "So stop playing the bully" is a personal attack, I've left a warning on your talk, you wont get another one - we discuss content not other editors, unfounded accusations like that are unacceptable and constitute a personal attack, please read WP:PERSONALATTACK. I have been assuming good faith, but I will take you to WP:ANI if you attack myself or other editors again. You're testing your luck with editwars and personal attacks, remember do not edit war and personal attacks are prohibited. Perhaps read WP:CIVIL, WP:RELIABLE and WP:FIVEPILLARS. Take it from someone who has learnt the hard way, you're gonna have a lot more fun editing Wikipedia if you don't edit war and if you keep things civil. Bacondrum (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't like being addressed as "hey mate" while being exposed to what I perceived to be a threatening tone. Nor did I realize I was bringing up a point that had already caused a lot of confusion in the past. I will have to think things over again. Thanks anyway for the references to the guidelines.Retal (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

expanded definition of SJW

My problem with the (provisional?) Oxford definition adopted by the article (but not justified by direct reference) is that it dissolves the idea of "waging war" into that of “promoting something”, whereas the reason for using the SJW qualification may not just be the targeted individual’s promotion of progressive ideals, but especially the tone and manner of such promotion. Significantly, the Collins Dictionary definition of SJW describes promoting ideals as “campaigning zealously and vociferously” (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/social-justice-warrior) and the Urban Dictionary (lemma signed by poopem) as “vehemently engaging in arguments”, while an article in TheOldie (https://www.theoldie.co.uk/article/modern-life-what-is-a-social-justice-warrior) explicitly connects the term SJW to culture wars. I therefore suggest the following expansion:

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, and who often operates in the context of ongoing “culture wars”.

In the next line, I think “carries implications” is too generalizing, and should be changed to “may carry the additional implication”. Thus, with the addition of a small grammatical correction:

The accusation that somebody is an SJW may carry the additional implication that such a person is pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and is engaging in disingenuous arguments.

If you disagree with my proposed changes, then argue with me.Retal (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Three points:

1. not sure how "often operates" in one sentence is okay, but "carries implications" is too generalising.

1. "Often" as against "always", "may carry" as against "carries": different ways of avoiding undue generalization.

1. There are dozens of definitions in UD. Picking one from user generated content is entirely unreliable. for example #7 on page 2. In addition the definition from UD is quoted by this WaPo article and this FEE article with much broader context and commentary. Secondary source analysis is preferred as primary sources usually reflect entirely the person in questions opinion.

1. OK, I will refer to one of the two articles you mention (and which are already being referred to in other places)

1. TheOldie doesn't say they "operate". It does say "There’s a war on – a culture war – and even the most well-meaning political action (‘Hey! Wouldn’t it be nice to put Jane Austen on a banknote?’) is classed as ideological possession and/or contemptible naivety" which does not mention any evident aggression or warring, and "a London student identified as @indiewashere, put it well after various right-wing pundits began applying the term SJW to survivors of the horrific school shooting in Florida" indicating that the idea of it being a war is evidently one sided. He does say that its origins at the Gamergate stage was "an all-out war between aggrieved feminist gamers and the indignant male gamers." but that is contrasted against his description of it now as a "the SJW caricature".

1. My point is that TheOldie (Richard Godwin) clearly states: "The key bit [of the term] is the 'warrior' part. There's a war on -- a culture war", which is apparently how the following examples should be understood.

Right now, can we find articles that say that the insult is used only against people engaged in a culture war? Are survivors of a school shooting "culture warriors" for not wanting to next? And this is the issue with the definition; it's still changing. The vast majority of its use (today) is as a generalist slur by the right. While its use on the left is very different. Koncorde (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your critical remarks. I inserted my reactions in your text.Retal (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not replying to embedded comments inside my comments with more embedded comments. That way madness lies for anyone trying to work out who said what. TheOldie you are misinterpreting the meaning and intent. If you are saying Kids who survived a mass shooting are engaged in a culture war, that is NOT what that article is saying. Koncorde (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is incomprehensible, Retal can you make things a little clearer, it's a mess. Please be clear and concise, respond to other editors directly under the previous comment, and indent appropriately, don't insert your responses into other editors responses, it's maddeningly difficult to make heads or tails of what is going on - as Koncorde said "that way madness lies". Have a read of this, WP:TALK - it's a super helpful guide to talk pages. Bacondrum (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, I think I can see what you are getting at, and it's a nonevent. The use of the word "warrior" is a figurative metaphor, like if someone was to say "you have heart of stone" That doesn't mean the subject literally has a heart made of stone. Likewise, if one was to say "I am drowning in a sea of homework" they are not actually drowning, or "dealing with COVID has been a rollercoaster ride", they're not really riding a rollercoaster. Same with social justice warrior, there are no bodies lying in the fields...it's a figurative, metaphorical expression. No further examination is needed. Bacondrum (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I know what a metaphor is, Bacondrum, but you are still not responding to my proposed addition to the definition of SJW, connecting it to culture wars (see above, italicized). Surely this tiny bit of contextualization can't be such a problem?Retal (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Except the examples given make it clear the usage of a "culture war" are as an accusation coming from the right/opposition whereas you are asking us to add it within the context that the SJW are engaged in a culture war and as a result they are called SJW. Actual examples / context given by sources does not support the culture war aspect from that perspective. Having an argument, or making arguments for something, or defending something doesn't mean that they see it as a culture war at the very least.

Like most insults/ slurs the reality of the victims situation is irrelevant to the charge of the insult. Like calling Democrats "Commies" etc the intent is to exaggerate the threat / efforts of the opposition. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not imply that each and every person called a SJW is engaged in aggressive culture warring, though I do think that many persons thus "slandered" and "insulted" are actually deserving of the epithet. But perhaps the subject is too politicized to be allowed to make such an obvious point, and the entry should be removed on account of WP:RECENTISM. So good luck to you, I leave for more attractive playing fields.Retal (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I never said you said it was all of them but by your own statement you do think that many are involved in a culture war. However they may be completely unaware and / or the accusation is tinged by ideological opposition and / or they may actually be culture war warriors. We can infer some people use the term to refer to such culture war warriors, but it's often thrown around as a generic insult far too much to take that as the actual meaning.

In effect you suggesting that the pejorative, described as exaggerated, reactionary, inflammatory etc is an accurate description of many such people. This defeats the idea that it is a pejorative at all. You are effectively lauding their prowess to fight for the things that they believe are right. To be clear: despite using the word "warrior", a keyboard warrior and an SJW are distinct for the purposes of a definition even if some people in popular parlance want to use SJW as kind of analogous. However that needs to be reflected in reliable sources, and most distinctly tie SJW to the idea of a Snowflake / Cancel culture / easily offended and so on. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Why does this article not mention hypocrisy as part of its definition of social justice warrior. Based on my research of how the term "SJW" is used on the internet, hypocrisy is the core element that distinguishes SJWs from actual progressives. For example, SJWs claim to stand against racism and sexism, while at the same time having an intense hatred for white men. SJWs often condemn anything that a man might find sexy as "objectification", while at the same time lusting after shirtless men. SJWs label any criticism they receive as harassment, while at the same time openly criticizing anyone they disagree with and trying to get them fired.

I think the article should mention at least some common social justice warrior behaviors instead of making the misleading claim that SJW is just a pejorative for a progressive person. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@NetSpiker: based on your research? Can you present sources?CycoMa1 (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term seems to be ignored by the media and I'm not sure what else would count as an acceptable source. My only sources are YouTube videos that point out social justice warrior behavior. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps those videos aren't the kind of media you should be consuming as a means of defining reality. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

YouTube videos aren’t good sources for Wikipedia standards. If you are interested please read WP:RS and WP:RSP.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Replace Alt-Right

Whilst I will not deny that there are many people on the far right using the term constantly, one cannot deny the very much leftist and centrist elements of those who use the term, it isn't just Alex Jones types who use it, for example, say in youtube, I doubt you could define him easily as a far rightist(https://www.youtube.com/c/ItsAGundam/videos), and one explicitly anti alt-right Kraut, although he has changed his videos to being about historical countryball videos(https://www.youtube.com/c/KrautandTea), for some more mainstream people, how about Bill Maher, whilst he may not be in the left left, one cannot call him a conservative unless you are using some other definition of it, then we can go to the average person using the term online, how is it fair to brand quite a large amount of gamers and anime fans and purely part of the right, many people in the communities have differing perspectives on politics, I have seen leftist and moderate anti sjws, as an anti sjw myself, I would like to think I am for women's rights to be equal and for equality between the races. Those amongst the anti-sjw community include people of varying perspectives. They and I myself should not be ignored.

Just to say I am not citing youtube as a source, I am just showing you direct examples of what I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say only the Alt-Right use it, however there's a very good chance you wouldn't know about the term without Gamergate and those Alt-Right groups pushing it purposely to attack those they opposed. As the article also says - it's a pejorative. If you're using it as a pejorative for a particular person, maybe think about why? Koncorde (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, my main source of the term was actually Bill Maher, and again at least in youtube, those who mass used the term, were quite clearly not only the Sargon types, the anti-sjw community was very varied in terms of politics, anti-sjw only united them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.165.105.11 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that story doesn't gel with the actual historical use of the term. Maher never used it until long after it was made popular on the internet. It was made popular on the internet by Gamergate (who are people of a variety of political stripes) but it was then adopted by the Alt Right for their purposes and to continue pushing their attacks on people like Anita Sarkeesian and their general culture war. That doesn't mean Gamergate itself, or whatever the "anti-SJW" community is, are Alt Right (the article certainly doesn't claim that). It just means that it was adopted by the Alt Right as a tactic of monopolising it the same way they used memes like Pepe the Frog. Also this was all 6-8 years ago. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)