Talk:Social justice warrior

WikiProject Women

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

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

Thank you,

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

You are entitled to your opinion. While social justice often concerns women's rights and SJWs often promote social justice, this topic is not directly related to women in general. SSTflyer 12:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:WikiProject Women, they state in their intro: "Welcome to WikiProject Women! We're a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. WikiProject Women brings Wikipedia users of all genders, sexual orientations, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of women's content across Wikipedia. Know that we warmly welcome you to participate in the project's scope, whether or not you are a project member." This indicates a wide project scope. Let's please keep this WikiProject listing on this talk page. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

While I would agree the article isn't only or even primarily about women, it does focus on that aspect often; "women's rights" is mentioned in literally the first sentence for example. This seems just as relevant to WikiProject Women as it does most of the other wikiprojects listed above. Sam Walton (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Samwalton9, thank you. And also feminism is directly related to women, as well. — Cirt (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Cirt on this. The tag belongs there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Headbomb, most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So we now admit this topic is about social justice (did ya spot the clue in the title?) but still refuse to link here from Social justice? How bizarre. Equinox (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox:Better? — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The spooky Google Chrome extension

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

 Done, I've removed that material, per DIFF. @APerson:I admit I thought it would be nice to keep in the article, but unfortunately you're quite correct, best to wait and see if there's a greater preponderance of sourcing on that particular factoid. Thank you for your most polite and constructive feedback here on the talk page! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem, any time! APerson (talk!) 04:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

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

It appears above claims by this user are not backed up by sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Further, the language chosen by the above complainant in order to complain quote; "This article makes it seem that all social justice warriors are saints persecuted by heathen misogynist trolls." -- appears to betray that particular user's POV about the subject matter. My belief is this article should reflect reliable secondary sources on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. WP:WEIGHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir, thank you. The complainant user has again refused to engage in talk page discussion. I note I've attributed the source directly to the person who said it themselves. — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is socially progressive myself and has no time for sexism, racism or any similar prejudices, nevertheless I agree with the first person - this article is strongly biased. The narrative of this article is more or less what the first complainant stated. In actual fact, while it's true that SJW is sometimes used to slur anyone advocating progressive views, it's not the only use. The term covers a spectrum, with some people reserving its usage for those who advocate extreme positions, e.g. the idea that a white guy dressing up in a Mariachi costume on Halloween is 'cultural appropriation that mocks a marginalized, oppressed ethnic group purely for the amusement of priviledged white people'. We've all seen this kind of mindset expressing itself around the net, so don't pretend it doesn't exist. 95.149.93.114 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

IP above makes good points. I also noticed a disturbing slant in the way the article is focused on and written from one particular point of view.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Having read the article it seems to include a lot of definitions of the term, which are in agreement with what the IP is saying. So I'm not seeing the issue at all. Brustopher (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir and Brustopher. Above complainants have failed to present reliable secondary sources to back up their spurious arguments. — Cirt (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reappropriation sect

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

Aw thanks m8! Brustopher (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)