Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Social justice. There are strong arguments on all sides of this debate. On the one hand, there are reliable sources (although many of the sources brought up during this debate do not rise above blogposts, some of them are more substantial). On the other hand, this does indeed look like a dicdef. Given the sourcing, it appears that the people arguing for a merge into Social justice have the strongest case. Randykitty ( talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Social Justice Warrior

Social Justice Warrior (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Adjusting magnitude of my support per the valid arguments listed below. I still stand at keep based solely on GNG but concede it is decidedly less black-and-white. Dea db eef 19:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
It clearly is, since it has no notability as determined by reliable sources, and is a product of recentism and WP:SOAP. Once I see it in the OED, or some similar book of words and phrases, then maybe it warrants an article. It certainly does not now. It is a WP:FRINGE term. I'm not defending any of the OTHERSTUFF that ought be deleted too. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia documents fringe topics, so that would not be a reason for deletion. Diego ( talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia documents fringe topics if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third party sources. While flung in great quantity, the reliable sources about the subject are certainly not "significant", mostly simply a dic def. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
"Significant and reliable" as a whole academic paper about the concept, you mean? The "dic def" argument doesn't support itself when you read the sources and see that they provide a lot of context for how an by whom the term is used in addition to what it means. Diego ( talk) 09:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
a single source that talks about the term applying it to Gandhi and MLK does not actually address the lack of reliable sources about the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge - into Social justice. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a prime example of WP:RECENT doing a poor job to allege notability. See new opinion in bold below. To quote, "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view [...]." Search results yield urban dictionary and primarily blogs. Citations are far from ideal to say the least (opinion pieces and blogs [2] [3] and heavy partisan bias [4] [5]) and largely just mention the term and are not articles dedicated to it [6] [7]. Note: I just cited every source from the article as highly suspect and arguably not worth inclusion; That this article relies on those as primary sources speaks volumes. When evaluated with source intent, recentism, and Wikipedia's wider objectives of likely historical context, the result is clear that WP:NEO or WP:WORDISSUBJECT do not apply. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
It should be noted that WP:RECENT is an essay which may be in the minority view of users and should be garnered no weight for a policy based deletion rationale. WP:NEO does not apply because it's received ample coverage and WP:WORDISSUBJECT because there is encyclopedic information to be harvested from sources which just have not been reincarnated as a result. Tutelary ( talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Someone with your experience level should know that essays with such large precedent behind them are perfectly valid AfD talking points. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
They should take second place when confronted with actual policy like the WP:GNG, though, as policy has gained community-wide consensus, and essays have not. Diego ( talk) 13:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Also per RGloucester on WP:DICTIONARY. We aren't here to host buzzwords or memes. Moreover, just because a term is used in the media doesn't automatically grant notability. I'd also support Isaidnoway's idea to merge and let them handle the matter of inclusion over there if there is no consensus here. The regulars over there would handle it better than a largely-bureaucratic AfD. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Merge with Social Justice. If there's one thing we seem to have something close to consensus on it's that there's probably some content somewhere in here that might have some value even amongst people with delete !votes. A better discussion can be had over what's notable or not out of this over at the broader article. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Purely keeping to the sources, there has been ample coverage and discussion of the term in itself, and as such, warrant notability. The commentators seeking to devoid or delete this page based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY are missing the point. It's not so much an example of the term that that's the issue, it's entries that don't devolve onto it further than that that the policy is intending to eliminate. Feminazi is an example of such. An ample page describing the cultural aspect of the term, to who it is applied, and the like certainly doesn't run afoul of it. Even keeping past that, easily meets WP:GNG in all aspects. Tutelary ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious delete per WP:RECENT, the OP, and lack of notability except SPS-type stuff surrounding petty internet conflicts. Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary. Hustlecat do it! 05:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Could you perhaps use an actual policy rather than an essay? Tutelary ( talk) 05:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Sure. WP:GNG. Was also going to add to my original reason, that the page can/will probably be created once more has been written on it in various places. But definitely no reason to exist now. Got a good eyeroll outta me though. Hustlecat do it! 05:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Even if the arguments at RECENT gained consensus, they would make sense for a merge and redirect rather than a delete and salt that is being proposed. Article titles should guide to relevant content instead of blanked pages, and the references show widespread use of the term, so it's a likely search term. This AfD should be decided with the interest of readers in mind rather than those of editors defending this or that cause; and readers need to know what is it that is being referred to with this name by such fringe sources like The Washington Post or The Irish Times, either at this page or at some other containing the same material. All the arguments based on "this is too important" or "this is too unimportant" should be essentially ignored. Diego ( talk) 12:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The article also gives undue weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain. There is no evidence why this man should define the topic and he doesn't seem to have written any books or such on the subject of social justice. In fact the articles sourcing in general is weak and the definition doesn't fit how the term is used -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 16:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I am fairly uncomfortable with the idea that you are both an established user AND editing with an IP. It sounds like you may be evading a COI. Juno ( talk) 07:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
It was as an expired proposed deletion on the 5th October [8]. (Apologies if I didn't do that link right; it's to a search of the deletion logs, should work though). Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 12:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
There was an AfD for it, I believe, although it may have been deleted before that. Is there no record of the deletion? Some people made compelling arguments for its deletion and it was thankfully successful, it should be listed here now that somebody felt the need to recreate so soon after the deletion of the first one, or this will keep happening -- 109.148.127.93 ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Would it be possible for an admin to compare the initial created version to the one that was deleted? [10] -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
an expired PROD deletion doesnt matter for anything. it just means that at one time a version has minimal to no sourcing - it was flagged - no one provided better sourcing or objected before a week had passed it was deleted. only in the case of a community consensus through an AfD would a previous version matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
You should post them here, I haven't seen the term used in serious news coverage or academic texts on social justice but if you can find good sources then we should keep it -- 109.148.127.93 ( talk) 14:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply
This exists: [11] -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply
That's one article, an iffy article at that. Also, the acronym "SJW" is referred to once in the article, the full description two other times. At the very most, a section can be added on the Social justice article. But that is not my !vote. Dave Dial ( talk) 06:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply
There aren't really many good sources for this being notable. The first google results are Urban Dictionary, a Tumblr blog and Roosh V's personal blog -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 14:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The problem is that there are very few sources and as such it is difficult to cover the topic properly, that is if it deserves an article on the project at all -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, though I'm not sure of the best target. It is a WP:NEO, and in light of being a negative-connotation word, should not be used in isolation without being able to fully give it context. As such it should be at the part of a larger article. I don't think that's social justice because while loosely related to the concept, it's not really connected. It seems the best current location is Gamergate controversy where the term got more light, though I'm aware there's other non-VG areas picking this up; however, other suggestions are possible. Deletion (or at least deletion without redirection) is inappropriate as the term is a valid search term and WP is not censored. -- MASEM ( t)
  • Obvious keep per the numerous sources listed above. No idea whatsoever why this would be nominated. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 13:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
This isn't a vote -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The problem here is that the largely ill-informed "keep because it's used a lot" votes confuse usage of the term with coverage of the term itself, as a pejorative word. Feminazi has received significant coverage in sources on the nature of the word itself, which is why an article there is justified. Tarc ( talk) 15:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
We are still even lacking in a basic definition of the term. The current one gives WP:UNDUE weight to a games journalist called Erik Kain -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 17:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
That's odd considering we got one for the GamerGate article. Half Hat 20:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Why are you talking about GamerGate? -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 20:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Because that has or at least had a definition of the term. Half Hat 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
"We had to scramble to the dregs of potentially usable sources because there we no actually reliable sources" speaks volumes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
What are you even talking about? Half Hat 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I am talking about the fact that for us to even have a "definition" for this article we need to stoop to a blogger, from a finance magazine none the less, because no actual reliable linguistic-based sources have covered the term - ie the "source" in the GG article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The term has also been used in academic contexts outside of the GamerGate, by the American Society for Public Administration where it refers to "new warriors of our times" that "fight with words instead of weapons and wage war within our society instead of on other shores", and by The Stringer here, where it's applied to someone fighting an unjust legal system. Diego ( talk) 13:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
That does not seem to be about the pejorative "SJW" but rather about people who are actually known for working for social justice - it cites Ghandi and King as examples. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
So? It shows notability for the concept of social justice warrior in general. Diego ( talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
that there is no sourcing about "the concept of social justice warrior in general" connecting Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) means that we cannot lump them together either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply
What makes you think Social justice warrior (slur) and Social justice warrior (activist) are separate things? To me they pretty much look like both have the same meaning. I have seen no reliable source in linguistics establishing Social justice warrior (slur) as a separate concept, unrelated to the idea of an activist fighting for social justice; in fact that's the very thing that is being critizised or ridiculed. The usage as slur is not about a separate concept, all references cover the same topic. Articles in Wikipedia are defined by what reliable sources say about a topic, so that distinction you make is OR unless a RS makes it. Diego ( talk) 08:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
P.S. And if you read the academic reference I provided, it does establish criticism of SJWs by the general public as part of their defining characteristics, so yes we have a RS connecting both ideas. Diego ( talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Can you provide a quotation of this please? I can't find anything in the article that connects the two ideas -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 12:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I was referring to this sentence, right in the introduction: "In advocating for unwelcome changes, these warriors are often accused of violating the social contract and being “Un-American”". It would have been nice if you asked without labeling my claims as possibly false. Diego ( talk) 13:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
So from the "un-American" we can presume that this is an americentric term? At least in that singular recorded usage of it -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
If we are talking about a mere synonym for social justice advocacy, there is no basis for a separate article. If we are talking about the slur, there is insufficient evidence to establish notability. Which is the topic being proposed for this article?-- Trystan ( talk) 14:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
"A person who engages in social justice advocacy, and is critizised because of it" (which is how the academic paper describes the concept). This is not about the abstract idea of "social justice", but about the people who pursue it, and what media are saying about them; i.e. a WP:SPINOUT of social justice as a related subtopic. Academic sources and presence in the media don't establish notability in your book? Diego ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
You used the plural for "academic sources", what we have is one academic source and some blog entries, we have to be careful of WP:FRINGE -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 17:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per Cúchullain. It's not enough to have sources that merely use or define the term; we need reliable sources that are about the term itself. The current state of the article is simply a definition followed by a tangent regarding one instance of its use, and I see no evidence that a reliably-sourced article is possible on this topic at this time.-- Trystan ( talk) 04:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Deletion of articles is not decided on the current state of articles, but on the existence of significant coverage of the topic at the reliable sources that describe it. We have plenty of reliable sources giving common characteristics of what a social justice warrior is. Diego ( talk) 08:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Most of those sources are blog posts. I'm not saying that there are none at all but saying "plenty of reliable sources" is exaggerating the amount of and quality of material that we do have access to -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 12:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
you are actually putting forth ACLU blog as a source we can and should use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
If you feel it is most appropriate to merge then I would say that is the way to go. This isn't notable enough by itself and if is can be tied to the real concept of social justice (rather than as a byword for anti-homophobia/anti-racism/anti-sexism as I generally see it used) then it should go there and be appropriately written and sourced -- 5.81.52.82 ( talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't care either way. There's clear usage of the term in multiple sources with the meaning of someone who fights for social causes (which is seen as a good or bad thing depending on who you ask), it has been defined as such in an academic paper, and reliable newspapers are documenting how the Internet is using that meaning as a pejorative against people involved in the GamerGate. To me that qualifies as a topic, but if people think that information fits better at social justice, I'm fine with it. Diego ( talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The first two of your sources use the phrase only once, in the headline. That's not the sort of source that is relevant for establishing notability. Other that, I see a handful of blog posts that don't for me collectively meet the test set out in WP:N in terms of quality or depth of coverage.-- Trystan ( talk) 14:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
See WP:JUSTABLOG and WP:RSOPINION: "otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." The links above are by ACLU, The Stringer, Boing Boing, Spectator.co.uk or The Nation, and there are plenty more where these came from; the whole space of online media are writing about SJWs, and many of them devote whole articles to the topic. (And BTW, how does it matter that the words "social justice warrior" are only uttered once? The whole ACLU and Stringer articles are about persons fitting the concept and defined by the writers with those words). Diego ( talk) 15:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
and neither forbes nor kain (nor the vast majority of footnotes used) are linguistics sources - reliable opinions for business, sure, but the topic is not business related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply
Therefore, being non-linguistic, they can't establish Social justice warrior (slur) as an independent topic. They're acceptable sources to establish notability about online social phenomena though. Diego ( talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social_justice_warrior&oldid=1146658802"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE