Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Social justice warrior. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not neutral point of view

The article doesn't represent a neutral point of view approach as it is strongly affected by conservative bias.

For example, "progressive" is often used as synonym to "liberal" as opposed to conservative and also article puts into negative/'pejorative' context such views as progressive/liberal and feminism (feminism is also more linked with liberal views). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterixf2 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Okay, if we were to accept your premise, what changes do you think should be made to the article? Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see urban dictionary entry for an example --Asterixf2 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. The Urban Dictionary page is an example of what? Usage? There are obvious issues with using Urban Dictionary as a source. Let me know. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether it's a reliable source, the Urban Dictionary page is doing a much better job of explaining the term than this one.18.189.90.47 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That can happen! Sometimes Wikipedia policies mean it's a little slow to catch up to the world. But on the whole, I think they do a pretty good job. That's just me, though! Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have the term explained then go to the dictionary. This barely qualifies as an article, never-mind an explanation of the term, which is not what wikipedia is about. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruption of this talk page

Disruption of this talk page is inappropriate.

Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

Let's keep the focus to discussing what is represented in the preponderance of reliable sources.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Recentism and POV

Article itself notes term dates to before 1991 as laudatory.

Then article contradicts itself before this to say term is pejorative and originated in 2015.

This is both recentism and POV violations.

Term clearly should first be described in chronological order, in its earliest origination as a laudatory term, first.

Then progress in chronological order to when it first began to be used as a pejorative.

To do the opposite is unencyclopedic POV violation.

— Cirt (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Commentary thread

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure this is the right approach, as nothing tells me the term was notable before its recent incarnation, so to speak. We're interested in the term insofar as it has a real place in the zeitgeist; I think stricter etymological approaches are better left for other places. Then again, I'm wrong about plenty. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article should present a straight chronological approach. This article currently fails that. — Cirt (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, where the term is notable in a different sort of order than strict chronology, that should be taken in to account. I think it makes sense here to discuss the recent and much more notable usage, and then (maybe) mention the antedated examples. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That is POV on your part. The term predates usage in a positive fashion and is quite notable as such, as well. Both are notable. Both should be represented. Neither is antedated or subsumed by the other. To subjectively selectively choose to ignore one over the other and ignore secondary source usage of one over the other is blatant NPOV violation and wrong. — Cirt (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it wrong to note that a press release from Partners in Health doesn't carry the same notability weight as, say, the Washington Post? And for the record, not only do I believe in violations and wrong, I'm pretty evil when you get right down to it, or so I am told. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It is wrong to ignore all sources pre-2015 due to subjective POV, and that is a violation of NPOV, yes. — Cirt (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not listening. The term is evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The term has both positive and negative connotations. Both should be described in the article in the chronological order to accurately present their history. — Cirt (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not being clear. The term "social justice warrior" is not evil. The term for me is "evil." Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on the chronological appearance of the term throughout history in sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a very evil approach, and thus I can't really support it. Turn up the evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of arbitrarily picking a method to depict an article, the article should rely on source usage of the term over time. And not ignore any particular time period. For example, we should not ignore all sources pre-2015. — Cirt (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We should ignore all sources that aren't evil. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Such arbitrary definition of source selection is contrary to Wikipedia site policy. — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Preferring sources based on their wickedness, and yes, their evil, is anything but arbitrary. All hail the dark lord of NPOV violations! Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

By using sources throughout history and presenting them in chronological order, we can show the reader how the term developed and changed over time. — Cirt (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

By focusing on evil, we can engulf this encyclopedia in cyberflames which cannot be quenched. Dumuzid (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be evil. — Cirt (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Google is not Wikipedia. EVIL. Dumuzid (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please I urge you to take the time to read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thank you very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You clearly haven't been around long enough to be told of the secret sixth pillar. I don't want to give it away, but here's a hint: it's EVIL. Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is "Social Justice Warrior", a specific relatively recent term. It's capitalized. The words "social justice" + "warrior" have been combined in the past just like any other rough synonym for "advocate" or "activist" could be combined with "social justice" in a positive sense. This article is about a particular neologism that's used as a pejorative, though, not just the combination of words. That the words have been used together previously is worth a very brief mention at best. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The vast preponderance of secondary sources pre-2015 use the exact term "social justice warrior" in a positive sense. The fact that it is capitalized or not is irrelevant. — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(comment withdrawn) Dumuzid (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dumuzid (talk · contribs): Please stop. Your inane ramblings on this talk page are disruptive. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The vast preponderance of secondary sources pre-2015 use the exact term "social justice warrior" in a positive sense. The fact that it is capitalized or not is irrelevant. You started this by saying I'm incorrect, but you're only emphasizing the distinction. One term is a pejorative, usually capitalized, and appeared just in the last couple years. Another term is a more literal meaning of the combination of words, not capitalized, and used for about as long as the term "social justice" has been used because it's just a charged synonym for "advocate" in this non-pejorative sense. There are also sources about "social justice fighter", "warrior for social justice", and, as I indicated in my previous message, any "social justice [rough synonym for advocate]" because those sources aren't about this term. I don't have a big problem mentioning that it had been used before if sources talking about the pejorative do the same, but we shouldn't be including sources about that three word combination independent of the pejorative any more than we would include sources which mention people who literally just stepped off a ship in the article about fresh off the boat or sources about a church group that happened to meet in a cafeteria in the article for Cafeteria Christianity (i.e. the term did not evolve from "Christianity discussed/practiced in a cafeteria" to the pejorative meaning -- it's a separate concept). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, with Rhododenrites, but also, I think there's an issue of WP:UNDUE. I absolutely agree that social justice warrior was not always the pejorative it is today, but the examples currently set up as a seeming counterpoint to the discussion from the Oxford English Dictionary strike me as a clear case of undue weight. To wit, for current positive uses, we cite to: (1) a press release from Partners in Health, which references an honorary degree given by Regis College, a small Catholic institution outside of Boston; (2) The Stringer, an online-only Australian newspaper; and (3) an essentially non-notable book on ecological justice, a citation which has no context (or even a page number). Without intending to denigrate any of these sources, this small farrago is insufficient for the proposition that the non-pejorative use of this term is alive and well, which is seemingly what is implied. I obviously think it's worth retaining the OED's gloss on how the meaning has changed, but these sources hurt the article more than help and seem to me not properly weighted. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. To source information about the history of the term, we need secondary sources that discuss the phrase (like the Washington Post article), not primary sources that merely use the phrase. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I also think you're wrong Cirt. This article is about the noteworthy (tenuous, please see the argument that it barely qualified as more than a DICDEF) use as a neologism and pejorative. It's okay to mention its earlier use, but there is only one source actually directly referencing the two uses - and none of the other sources discuss its use, only refer to it. This is synthesis. Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of you above that more research and secondary sources would be ideal. But the earlier term is the more used one. Both terms should be amply described in this article. In their chronological order. — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, you claim that "the earlier term is the more used one." Do you have a secondary source for that claim, or is that your original research? I would respectfully ask that you slow down your editing as you are clearly now going against talk page consensus. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:I'd respectfully rather engage in civil discourse with others that are able to do so. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So, Cirt, if I were to put that another way, you didn't hear me? Ignore me if you like, but I'd ask that you not ignore talk page consensus. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, it is most unfortunate that the earlier exchange with Dumuzid was quite disturbing and illustrated a lack of willingness to engage in rational discourse. DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sorry! But I'm not asking you deal with me. Just that you slow down a bit and look for talk page consensus before making wholesale changes to the article. While we're at it, your citation to Beyond Diversity Day strikes me again as totally undue and as a usage rather than an explanation of the term. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any assistance from other editors to help research further among additional secondary sources. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits and contributions so far indicate otherwise as you have effectively railroaded some bold, but terrible, edits. Lets be clear - the notability of "Social Justice Warrior" is not lent by any historical context. I have no idea what your problem is, but you clearly have one. Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My only problem recently is with the inappropriate behavior of Dumuzid (talk · contribs). Other than that, I'm most happy to work with others to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia so they reflect the preponderance of sources out there. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the behaviour you are exhibiting, with or without the smiley. Colour me surprised but 4 experienced editors largely don't agree with your changes so far, although maybe I am overstating my opinion of Rhododendrites,Dumuzid and Grangers stance. Koncorde (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps give me a chance. I've written several Featured Articles on Wikipedia and a good deal of Good Articles. I apologize if recent inappropriate behavior by Dumuzid (talk · contribs) DIFF may have colored my impression of respondents to this article talk page. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your chances do not interest me when you started with an argument to start with which you escalated into hatting and then making a public demonstration. As it stands almost nothing you have contributed has improved the article. Given your inclination to change this to an article about 'social justice warrior the sentence structure' from the pejorative neologism (which defeats the phrases single case of notability I might add) I very much doubt you are going to make much forward progress with consensus. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Not sure what's going on here but I wanted to ask everyone to turn down the heat a bit. Topics like this attract edit warriors from outside Wikipedia, and things can get testy when interacting with these kinds of editors. However, everyone in this thread appears to be a well-established contributor and so you should remember to assume good faith of other editors and remember that they are here for the same reason you are, to improve the encyclopedia. There's no reason we can't discuss this topic within the bounds of civility. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly was a less than helpful earlier, because I had my good faith arguments rejected out of hand, and got the feeling I was being railroaded very quickly. That's why I don't mind, Cirt, if you don't want to deal with me. But again I would ask that you respect the talk page consensus. And Koncorde, as you might guess, I think you capture my opinion pretty well. Dumuzid (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dumuzid (talk · contribs), most appreciated. You were less than helpful. It was most confusing. I apologize I was not trying to railroad you. I'm merely trying to improve the quality of this article with additional sources. I hope we can all work together to improve the quality of this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Term is downscale per Oxford English Dictionary

Term is downscale, per Oxford English Dictionary:

"social justice warrior". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 March 2016.

— Cirt (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the Oxford English Dictionary, and I don't see where it says "downscale". What does "downscale" mean in this context? Was it a typo for "derogatory"? —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The article should be located at social justice warrior, not "Social Justice Warrior". — Cirt (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, per the arguments for notability. The fact we nicely referred to some historical uses of the term is the absolute most that could be reliably sourced as comment about the "historical sense". Its association to "social justice" as a concept was also completely debunked - the pejorative has no demonstrable link. All of this is dealt with in the comments above and discussions already had. You are not introducing new information but parsing the content that did exist into some kind of synthetic article. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article at present does indeed rely upon secondary sources, including The Washington Post citing the chief editor of U.S. dictionaries for Oxford University Press who notes that, yes, it did have a positive connotation, first. — Cirt (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not why the article exists. Your opening sentence is a lie, the article is now abominable, and is now synthesis where you are trying to find sources to meet the POV you believe is correct. Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, as far as I can tell, no one is disputing that the phrase "social justice warrior" was used in positive contexts. Our argument is that the neologism commonly abbreviated as "SJW" is an independent linguistic phenomenon and that this page should not simply be a history of every time the words "social," "justice," and "warrior" have been combined. I'm not quite sure you understand the stance the rest of us are taking. ETA: Upon review, I have to agree with Koncorde that the first sentence seems especially wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The latter term evolved from the former. To ignore such history is simply silly. I have no idea why earlier usage of the exact same phrase "social justice warrior" is not relevant here. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, again, you are dismissing the talk page arguments out of hand, which does not strike me as helpful. You certainly don't evince any desire to work with others in a collegial way, as shown by your continued editing without consensus. I'd respectfully ask again that you cease editing the main article until we can get some sense of our bearings. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I'm sorry but I'm in the process of additional research. I'm not sure why additional good sources should not be added to the article. I don't know why the article should be frozen in a previous state for all eternity. That is most confusing. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

...your lack of idea is the issue? If you look above, at the weight of discussions both here, the deletion logs and at social justice there's already a wealth of commentary about what this article. You haven't been wholesale reverted by me out of civility, but the current article is beastly and that you appear happy to be building something like this is clearly of concern to a number of editors. Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, the rest of the talk page seems to agree that the sources you are adding, are not, in fact, good sources. I wish you could hear that. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Which one? Why? — Cirt (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, you would do better to work on this draft on a talk page or sandbox. You do not look to have any support for these changes and several people raising concerns. Right now the first sentence of this article is ""Social justice warrior", commonly abbreviated as "SJW", originated as a laudatory term for those engaged in social justice." That is a major change. Will it require one of us to revert to move forward in the WP:BRD process or can you address these many objections before pushing forward? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, I ask of you to be patient and give me a chance with additional research. — Cirt (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The solution is not to wholesale change the meaning of an article, then beg for time to do it when the article - even with your edits - will not change its meaning because it has nothing to do with the laudatory meaning in this context. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we agree the pejorative meaning evolved from the laudatory meaning, per secondary source The Washington Post ? — Cirt (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it say "evolved" in the article? Koncorde (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Washington Post wrote "Here’s how 'social justice warrior' became a part of that debate" and described "When it was a compliment" and traced examples of its usages in positive forms and subsequently early negative forms. -- that's pretty much step-by-step tracing the term's history. We should follow the model of that secondary source, and do the same, here in this Wikipedia article. — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, you do realize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, right? In-depth etymologies are at best unnecessary and at worst distractions. For example, though truthiness is a known usage from as far back as the nineteenth century, for obvious reasons, our article focuses on Stephen Colbert's usage. I am not saying this instance is as cut-and-dried as that, but we're working with similar principles. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before with the Southwork/Van Slyke paper. Cirt, the first page clearly says "Please do not cite without authors’ permission."[1] Unless you have permission or some other reason to believe that the use is authorized, I would recommend taking those citations out of the article. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Truthiness is a much bigger article and goes into way more depth and breadth and scope and cites sixty-one sources. That's great! Also, we have the secondary source here The Washington Post, that does indeed trace the usage of the term both positive and negative, and we should take our model from The Washington Post, a secondary source. That cite note for Southwork/Slyke is not for Wikipedia, but a note for other late academic journals. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cirt, there is nothing that suggests the disclaimer on the front page of that conference presentation paper does not apply to Wikipedia. You are now simply making up your own rules. If that's the best argument you have, then I think those references need to be removed. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, I've contacted the authors of that paper to see if there's a more recent version of that publication. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting that Wikipedia was not magically excepted from the plain language request on the front page. At this point, I think the wisest course of action would be to revert to the last stable version of the article, in essence, yesterday. Dumuzid (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a most unfortunate response, to wholesale revert everything. Surely we can discuss how to improve the article after all my research so far? — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect Cirt, I think the version of the article prior to your research is preferable. I think you would do an excellent job on Wiktionary, for the record. But I don't intend to do anything here unilaterally. Dumuzid (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dumuzid:So you think a wholesale revert of literally ALL my edits is appropriate? You think all my archiving citations is bad? You think it was bad for me to add missing authors to citations? You think we should undo all my improvements to citations? — Cirt (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I do. I think a rollback to a stable version is a good idea here. I might very well be the only person who thinks so, but that's what I would do were I king of the world. Let's both be grateful that I'm not! Dumuzid (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

When considering reverting a number of changes to the article, please remember to take care not to also remove non-controversial improvements like expanding citations. Also, I know that this is a frustrating situation for everyone, but please don't accuse other editors of thinking "archiving citations is bad". I'm sure there is room for compromise here. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good points all, Gamaliel, I'm sorry about that. I agree with you and I also sincerely hope there is some room for compromise here. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of archive links, if the original link is still active, the "dead-url=no" parameter should be added so that the live URL remains the primary one. If at a later time the link goes dead someone can flip set it to "yes". — Strongjam (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Strongjam, I've gone ahead and further improved the existing citations in the article, so this is now

Done. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Organization of the lead

I'm starting a new section because the discussion above seems to be getting sidetracked. As I see it, the biggest problem with the current version of the article is that the lead begins with the secondary meaning of the phrase (secondary in that it is discussed less by sources) and doesn't seriously discuss the primary (pejorative) meaning until the second paragraph. In my opinion, the lead should begin by talking about the pejorative meaning, because this is the meaning that is most discussed in reliable sources. Do other editors agree? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Granger, that is a most helpful and specific suggestion. Does this look a bit better? — Cirt (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I do think that's better, but I would go further. I would change the first sentence to something like

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights and civil rights.

and then start talking about the laudatory meaning and the history of the term in the second paragraph. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the specific recommendation, Mr. Granger, I really truly appreciate your collegiality and helpfulness here, very much !!! Is this a little bit better now? — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks better to me; thanks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The next major problem that I see is the Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education quote. The source does use that quote, but not in a discussion of the term "social justice warrior"—rather, the quote is simply talking about social justice activism in an article that happens to use the phrase "social justice warrior" several times. I suggest removing the sentence altogether. (I would remove it myself, but I think I may have reached my third revert for the day, so I would appreciate it if Cirt or someone else could remove the sentence.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Trimmed that source from the article. Better? — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Next, I would like to rephrase the section titles. The "Origin and meaning" section only discusses one of the two meanings, so I'd like to change that title to just "Origin", or to something else that doesn't suggest that the section is talking about the only meaning of the phrase. I would also like to change the other section title to something that doesn't mention Gamergate, because not all of the section is about Gamergate. Maybe that section could just be titled "Pejorative use". —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, at this change -- look better? — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I think the article looks quite a bit better now—I'll do a bit of copyediting at some point, but there are no other urgent problems jumping out at me. Maybe other editors have more suggestions for improvement, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mr. Granger, together we've reached an effective compromise and improved the quality of the article greatly. Its prior version was basically a stub with eight (8) sources, and the current version brings together information from twenty (20) sources. I agree with you, Mr. Granger, that this version of the article serves and informs our readers much better than the prior version. Thank you, Mr. Granger, for your most thoughtful and helpful and specific and polite suggestions, I really appreciate it very much !!! — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The volume of the article has increased, rather than anything qualitative, and there's about 3 pieces of commentary worth retaining that expand beyond what already existed. The majority is crufty quotes. The In Popular Culture portion is about the best bit added of any relevance. Koncorde (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the In popular culture section which I researched, created, and added, adds some good value to the article, most appreciated! I feel the additional research I've done incorporating further sources helpfully shows differing perceptions of the term over time. I'd have to say I agree here with Mr. Granger after we had some great collaboration and compromise after positive discussion, who said: "I think the article looks quite a bit better now". Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde that the long list of quotes is a bit much—it would be good to cut them down and summarize the information from them. —Granger (talk · contribs)

Okay, what suggestions do you propose to summarize these new sources a bit? — Cirt (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Cites in lede sect

Please I'd prefer the lede sect only has name-ref of cites, and the full citations themselves then can appear later on in the article body text.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Regular or capitalised title

For what it's worth, I agree that the title should be 'Social justice warrior', not 'Social Justice Warrior' with all words beginning with a capital. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree with PeterTheFourth. For many reasons, including as explained by 97198 at Special:Permalink/713144571 and carried out by admin Anthony Appleyard. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Permstrump

Edits by Permstrump (talk · contribs) reduced quality of article by:

Removing sources
Moving full citations up into lede sect where they should not be located
Violating WP:LEAD, per WP:LEAD, lede sect should be able to function on its own as a complete standalone summary of entire article's contents.

For these reasons, these edits are inappropriate.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I incorporated a bit and copy edited a bit from the model by Permstrump (talk · contribs), hopefully this compromise looks a tad bit better now. — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Performed a few more minor copy edits for tense uniformity, keep all lede intro sect in past tense. — Cirt (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I like that we now have four brief succinct paragraphs for the WP:LEAD. Hopefully this now looks a bit more improved to all. :) — Cirt (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply. This was my thought process...

I rearranged the order of some sentences and therefore some of the citations and if the same source was referenced twice in a row in the same lead paragraph, I made the first one invisible (~2x), but I didn't remove any citations completely.
Per WP:CITELEAD, everything in the lead doesn't have to be cited as long as it's cited in the body for readability and flow. If things are cited in the lead (which these things already were), it doesn't matter if it's the full citation or not, because it looks the same to the reader either way. If there's some other policy that I'm not aware of, I won't do it again. If not, personally, I think working with citations is easier when the full citation is attached to the first time that source is referenced because then it's easier to find. The citations I moved were ones that I had to look for to edit for some reason or another, like adding a link. I don't really feel that strongly about it, so you can put them where ever you want or in the future, I will put them where ever a specific policy says they belong.
Paragraph 1 reads: "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for women's rights and civil rights.[1][2][3] And paragraph 3 read (it has since been changed slightly): The negative connotation was popularized during the Gamergate controversy and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][3] That is needlessly redundant, so in my revision, I merged the examples of the common ways SJW is used negatively and put them all in the first sentence. And then I removed the examples from the later sentence since its use as a pejorative was already clearly defined in the first sentence, as in: "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated "SJW") is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, including advocacy for ~~social liberalism~~, civil rights, political correctness, and feminism.[1]... The negative connotation was popularized during the Gamergate controversy.[3][2]" (In retrospect, I should have changed "social liberalism" to "civil rights" or some other synonym since "social liberalism" is basically repeating "socially progressive views," which appears earlier in the sentence.)
I don't think I violated WP:LEAD. The only thing I removed was this line (which appears in the current version): The Washington Post traced its usage "when it was used as a compliment" to its subsequent inclusion in debate with a negative connotation.[3] It's misleading since WaPo didn't say they traced it and it's kind of missing their entire point. From the source:
More than 20 years ago, the term was generally used as a neutral or even complimentary describer. Here’s a clip from a 1991 write-up of a Montreal jazz festival, from the Montreal Gazette... lexicographers [at Oxford University Press] haven’t done a full search for its earliest citation. But a cursory search for the phrase turns up several positive uses, spanning from the early ’90s through the early ’00s.

The whole point of the article is that in August 2015, Oxford Dictionary online added an entry for social justice warrior and defined it as "an informal, derogatory noun referring to 'a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views,'" but then when WaPo asked Oxford Dictionary how they came to that conclusion, the head of the US dictionary was like, "I don't know. We haven't really looked into it, but UrbanDictionary says it's negative. Now that you asked... I googled it and found a lot of positive uses. The first one in a "cursory search" is from 1991. Looks like in about 2011 is when it started to be used negatively per UrbanDictionary." This WP article makes it sound like there's been serious scholarship into history of the phrase and the definitive conclusion is that historically, it was always used as a compliment and now it's always used as an insult. I'm about 99% positive that when they do ever look into it, it will turn out that everyone that used to use it positively is still using it positively and that gamergaters, redditors and people who make comments on youtube videos are the only people who even know it could be used as an insult. PermStrump(talk) 14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to reply

Prefer not to make things "invisible", makes future editing easier for editors.
This article has generated some controversy and disputes. That is why it is best to have every single sentence cited by in-line citations, yes, including in the lede intro sect.
Not redundant, because the latter evolution of the term evolved concurrent with the Gamergate controversy, and so should be given in that sentence in order to be chronological.
We should present the lede in the same chronological order as the article itself. The Washington Post article is a good model to follow for this. As for your comment: "This WP article makes it sound like there's been serious scholarship into history of the phrase and the definitive conclusion is that historically, it was always used as a compliment and now it's always used as an insult. I'm about 99% positive that when they do ever look into it, it will turn out that everyone that used to use it positively is still using it positively and that gamergaters, redditors and people who make comments on youtube videos are the only people who even know it could be used as an insult." -- I'm not sure that's backed up by anything other than your personal opinion, and that's perfectly okay on the talk page. But in the article itself, I'd prefer to rely on secondary sources, and I really like the model used by The Washington Post article for this.

— Cirt (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:re:re:

The only things I made invisible were 2 times where the same source was cited in back-to-back sentences I made the first one invisible to make it an easier read per WP:CITEKILL. I only did it in lieu of completely deleting citations in instances where the statements were already sufficiently cited without the invisible one.
Other than the 2 instances above, I'm not arguing that citations should be taken out of the lead. My 2nd point was to address why I moved the full citation to the top. I did that because, as far as I know, there isn't a policy that suggests full citations shouldn't be in the lead. That's not what WP:CITELEAD is about, which I explained more in my first reply. Unless there's a policy I don't know about, it's just a matter of personal preference. My preference was to move the ones I had to search for the top, so I could find them, and IMHO, it would also be easier for other editors since intuitively, one would expect the full citation to appear with the earliest reference. It's not something I feel strongly about, so if that's not your personal preference, it's not like I'm going to go to the trouble of moving them again. I had only done it when I was working with the citations for other reasons.
I disagree. IMHO it's better to give those 3 examples in the first sentence to enhance the reader's understanding of how SJW is used pejoratively from the very beginning. Then later when it says the negative connotation was popularized by gamergate, there's no need to elaborate. It's more concise and doesn't lose any meaning.
The last sentence is clearly my opinion, but the rest of it I was paraphrasing (tongue-in-cheek) from the source. The source isn't trying to imply anything definitive or scholarly.
in August, “Social Justice Warrior” was included in the latest batch of words added to Oxford Dictionaries. The online dictionary from Oxford University Press defined the phrase as an informal, derogatory noun referring to “a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.” For those following the [gamergate] controversy and its diaspora, that particular addition to the dictionary was interesting. It is very, very difficult to find a reliable accounting of what the phrase actually means, and to whom it refers precisely, and why... Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at the Oxford University Press, said in an interview last month... lexicographers there haven’t done a full search for its earliest citation. But a cursory search for the phrase turns up several positive uses, spanning from the early ’90s through the early ’00s. So how did Social Justice Warrior become an insult? Since Social Justice Warrior is still pretty new to lexicographers, Martin didn’t have a definitive answer. Online, it’s hard to do the archaeology because there seems to be some confusion over the when the specific term emerged... Although Martin isn’t entirely sure when “Social Justice Warrior” switched from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one, the year 2011 seemed to be a turning point. That’s the year, Martin said, the insult first appeared on Twitter. And it’s when UrbanDictionary user poopem composed an entry for it. “It looks like it was the year that social justice warrior flipped,” Martin said.
Our article is interpreting this WaPo story way too seriously. PermStrump(talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump:We should use The Washington Post source as a model because it is a secondary source and we want to avoid violating WP:NOR. — Cirt (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should use it as a source and as a model, but currently, we're misrepresenting it. I'm not suggesting we use my tongue-in-cheek version. I was just trying to explain how we're misinterpreting it without going to the effort of copying the exact quotes that people could easily read for themselves, which I've now done. Our article should not be worded in such a decisive way. It should acknowledge that the same people who defined it as having a negative connotation (Oxford Dictionary) also admitted to not having done thorough research on its history and the statements made in the recent interview were only based on a "cursory search." PermStrump(talk) 15:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Okay. That makes sense. In that case, we can add that into the article body text itself. We should avoid directly introducing new material in the lede sect that is not in the article body text, as that violates WP:LEAD. — Cirt (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see DIFF. How does that look ? — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For the references, you could also do something like this:

{{reflist|30em|refs=
<ref name="foo">{{cite web|...}}</ref>
<ref name="bar">{{cite web|...}}</ref>
...
}}

– nyuszika7h (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: This is the sentence in the lead that I had an issue with: The Washington Post traced its usage "when it was used as a compliment" to its subsequent inclusion in debate with a negative connotation.[3] Personally, I'd suggest removing it completely because I think the main points from the WaPo source are already addressed in the lead and elaborated in the body. It's not supported by the source, so it needs to be removed or revised. Personally, I don't think that sentence contributes anything to the reader's understanding of the topic, nor does it impact the neutrality of the article in either direction. To me, it's purely superfluous and should just be removed. If there's a legitimate argument for why it's essential, then I'd suggest wording that's something like this,

The Washington Post gave examples of its earlier usage as a compliment and some recent examples from pop culture that illustrate the recent debate surrounding its negative connotation.

That's getting pretty wordy. It seems to me to be more a transitional/filler sentence that doesn't say anything new that isn't already expressed in another way, so WP:LessIsMore (that should be a thing). PermStrump(talk) 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, please see DIFF. Directly implemented suggested sentence by Permstrump (talk · contribs), above. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

SJW RPG

The first paragraph of the pop culture section talks about a parody role-playing game called Social Justice Warrior and it left me with a very different understanding of the game's premise than how I understood it after reading the source. I don't think this was intentional. I think it just makes too many assumptions about what the reader already knows. I'll try to explain how it sounds to someone that never heard of it before... I was reading about this video game assuming it was an example of SJW being used as an insult in pop culture since that's what the rest of this article is about and the discussion of the SJW video game never says otherwise. Keeping that in mind, read the article's current wording from that lens:

SJW wikipedia.org

In May 2014, the concept was incorporated into a parody role-playing video game titled Social Justice Warriors.[5][6] Developed by Nonadecimal Creative, Social Justice Warriors involved the concept of debating online against an Internet troll.[6] Users were able to select a character class; and gameplay involved changes to user meters of Sanity and Reputation.[6] The game became available on the computer platform Steam in February 2015.[7] Game creator Eric Ford explained the gameplay's logical extension over time: "Once you’ve embarked down the path of correcting every incorrect statement an anonymous stranger is making online, the only inevitable outcomes are that your patience is exhausted by frustration, your reputation is obliterated by the trolls’ defamation or your own actions, or you give up in disgust."[7] He said the motivation of the game was to foster critical thinking.[7]

To me, this sounds like it describes a game that makes fun of SJWs and equates them to internet trolls. I assumed the point of the game was to fight trolling SJWs and that its creator was trying to "foster critical thinking" by showing players that SJWs are disingenuous/closed-minded about their liberal philosophies or something like that. Imagine my surprise when I read in the source that the exact opposite is true. Here are so snippets:

SJW thinkprogress.org

From behind a keyboard, you take on the horde of racist, sexist trolls who turned the term ‘social justice warrior’ into an attack on anyone who advocates for better gender and racial politics in video games... You fight with trolls one-by-one, lowering their sanity and reputation with arguments and personal attacks, while trying to keep your own sanity and reputation from dropping too low and forcing you to log off. They attack with all-too-real troll arguments, things like “if he didn’t want to get shot, he shouldn’t have dressed like that.”... That’s when you start considering a personal attack. You’ve been sticking to reasoned arguments so far, but this troll clearly isn’t going to listen. You fling a personal attack, bringing the troll’s sanity and reputation way down, but it takes some of your reputation down with it. You don’t look good mud-slinging either, even when it’s for a good cause. That conflict, between wanting to take down the vile trolls at any cost, and preserving your own mental health and good name, is the one that animates Social Justice Warriors.... Ford says that temptation is purposeful. “There’s always a danger of things escalating into an us-vs-them conflict where disproving your opponent — winning — takes precedence over principles,”... While Ford has insisted the game isn’t pro- or anti-social justice warrior, his political sympathies are clear enough in the game. “We already ended racism like 40 years ago,” the troll says. “If you don’t think female privilege is real, you’re the real sexist.” They’re both laughably ridiculous, and sadly the kind of thing right wing trolls actually say. Your rebuttals are typically well-reasoned and sensible — at least until the trolls wear your sanity down. Despite Social Justice Warrior’s sense of futility for players, it isn’t “intended to suggest that racist, sexist, or other offensive comments shouldn’t be confronted online,” Ford said. The goal is to encourage critical thinking on how it can be done more effectively, and at less cost to the real-world social justice warriors.

Here's my suggested re-wording:

In May 2014, the concept was incorporated into a role-playing video game titled Social Justice Warriors.[5][6] Developed by Nonadecimal Creative, Social Justice Warriors has players take on the role of debating internet trolls who make racist and other provocative comments by choosing from different responses such as "'dismember their claims with your logic,' rebroadcast their message to be attacked by others, or go for the personal attack." Gameplay involves changes to user meters of Sanity and Reputation.[6] Game creator Eric Ford explained that the game isn’t “intended to suggest that racist, sexist, or other offensive comments shouldn’t be confronted online. The goal is to encourage critical thinking on how it can be done more effectively, and at less cost to the real-world social justice warriors."[7] The game became available on the computer platform Steam in February 2015.[7]

PermStrump(talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump:I made some modifications at DIFF. Why was the contraction "isn't" in your suggested wording, above? Did you copy that from the cited source itself ? — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Looks good. I probably deleted more than I meant to from the original and misremembered the exact wording. It wasn't meant to be a correction. PermStrump(talk) 18:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump:Thank you! I'm glad we're able to work together and come up with amiable solutions acceptable to all! Your polite and professional demeanor is most appreciated! :) — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Organization of references

@Cirt: Why have you been reorganizing the references like this? As far as I can tell, this makes them more time-consuming to find without providing any benefit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reformatting references in progress

Please bear with me.

Reformatting references in progress.

When it's done it will be quite easy to link between notes and references.

I will use model at Featured Article:

The General in His Labyrinth.

Please, have patience during ongoing reformatting process.

It will look much better soon.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth is a different situation, because it cites different pages of the same works, so short citations are helpful. Could you please explain what benefit they provide in an article like this one that never cites different pages of the same work? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Organizes cites in one location.
Models after WP:FA model The General in His Labyrinth.
One coordinated place for reader to see cites.
Cites will be organized in alphabetical order for future researchers.
All cites will bluelink to the References sect.
References sect can be printed out by future researchers in alphabetical order to consult for more info.

— Cirt (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Those seem like insignificant advantages to me, but I don't feel strongly one way or another. However, some of the links ("Technology Tell 2015", "Ohleiser 2015", "Hill 2014", and "Goldberg 2016") currently don't work—unless they can be fixed, this new format is a serious problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Granger please be patient. I will fix all the links, okay? — Cirt (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger:

Done. All notes and references now working bluelinks, formatted per WP:FA model at The General in His Labyrinth, please see permalink. I checked every single bluelink note and they all now work just fine. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We've had no further complaining so it looks like this quality improvement is successful. — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Language and Linguistics

Language and Linguistics WikiProjects are directly relevant as this is a form of jargon.

The WikiProjects should be restored.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Added back, per examples at Talk:Pejorative and Category talk:Pejorative terms for people and Category talk:Political neologisms. — Cirt (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about linguistics, a language, or a general feature of languages. If I understand your reasoning correctly, it would mean that every article about a word or phrase should be tagged with those two WikiProject banners, which is absurd. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussed in numerous sources within the context of fields linguistics, language, and languages. See examples at Talk:Pejorative and Category talk:Pejorative terms for people and Category talk:Political neologisms -- which already contain the WikiProjects. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another example, at WP:FA page Talk:Truthiness. — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality-rated WP:GA examples include: Talk:Ain't, Talk:Arab street, Talk:Doge (meme), and Talk:Dump months. Oh, and also Talk:Have a nice day, — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Of those examples, the only ones that are similar enough to this article to be relevant are Talk:Dump months and Talk:Truthiness, IMO, and I think the WikiProject Linguistics banner is probably as inapplicable there as it is here. Neither of them has a WikiProject Languages banner. But I don't think it's worth arguing about, so I'll stop and leave the banners alone. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, because the entire article deals with the changing linguistic use of the term in language in society over time. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I could see removing the Languages WikiProject, as this is a bit too particular for that project, which deals with things at a higher level, i.e. focusing on actual language articles, parts of speech, etc. Linguistics makes sense though. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, per suggestion by Torchiest, kept {{WikiProject Linguistics}}. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoring this article

To restore this article we need to rebuild it with valid sources. Here are a few to start us off:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonfraser (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 January 2016

Requested move 6 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The consensus is that this should be sentence case, per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and common usage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warrior → Social Justice Warrior – There has recently been dispute over how the phrase should be capitalized. Per WP:UCRN, the most common name should be used. A search for "social justice warrior" on DuckDuckGo shows that of the first 2 pages of results, 55 use "Social Justice Warrior" and only 12 use "Social justice warrior" or "social justice warrior". We should follow the capitalization that is more prevalent in usage. SSTflyer 01:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TITLEFORMAT says to use sentence case, and WP:UCN doesn't say anything about how things are capitalized. I'm leaning towards weakly opposing the move request, although if the capitalization is used consistently in the sources for the article maybe it would make sense to follow that. — Strongjam (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I've scanned thru the online available sources to the article. The majority use sentence case, the only ones that seem to not use sentence case are MTV (inconsistently uses both), Boing Boing (consistently upper cases first letters), HuffPo (one use, capitals) Mary Sue (one use, in capitals). There are a couple that use it as a proper noun when talking about a video game. All of the rest (15 or so, didn't keep a running count) seem to prefer sentence case. Including the OED. — Strongjam (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:POTENTIAL, we do not only judge based on sources currently in the article. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – no basis for capitalization per WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS, so leave it lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Oxford University Press uses: "social justice warrior" = lowercase. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not follow what a single source uses. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Agreed, but it's quite a strong single source. Just wanted to bring attention to that particular one. In reality, the majority of secondary sources do indeed use the lowercase term, as mentioned by other respondents above and below. — Cirt (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Don't see a compelling reason to capitalise all letters. It may be frequently shortened to 'SJW', but that doesn't mean it's a proper noun. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The article shows that there are many people called social justice warriors, not merely one grand Social Justice Warrior working alone like Batman or Superman. Here we merely have "importance capitalization" or "respect capitalization", not proper-name capitalization. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Social Justice Warriors" (in this form of capitalization) is frequently used, similar to for example Asian Americans. SSTflyer 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  - "Asia" and "America" are proper-names, and in English (but not in French) by customary usage their derivative ethnic adjectives keep the capital. The words "social" and "justice" and "warrior" are each not proper-names. In German, and formerly in Danish, this "importance capitalization" went to its apotheosis and capitalizing all nouns. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    - Another example would be Apple Watch. Is "Watch" a proper name? SSTflyer 11:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      - Yes, the product name is "Apple Watch" so it's a proper name, hence both words are capitalized. Similarly "tiger" is not a proper noun, but "Detroit Tigers" is a proper name. — Strongjam (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        It's closer to Jewish-American Princess where a stereotyped pejorative is capitalized. It's a pejorative identity being applied to an individual and the identity is capitalized to separate it from non-pejorative uses. --DHeyward (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - The hits for "social justice warrior" on DuckDuckGo linked in the OP don't support this proposal. The vast majority use sentencing casing within the article. The search results are only displaying titles. PermStrump(talk) 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - WP:NCCAPS. These are not proper nouns. Also Permstrumps point is strong. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, per WP:MOSCAPS. From what I gather from the article, it's a (pejorative) term to describe someone, not a movement or occupation. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Support as it is reported as a proper name stereotyping pejorative. They are not split up, as in '"social justice" warrior' but used as a group identifier. Not using caps is the same as saying "liberal Democrat" vs. "Liberal Democrat." "Liberal" is capitalized when it's the basis of a title for a group like the political party in the EU, but not capitalized when used to describe a viewpoint. "Social Justice Warrior" is a group label, not a description of viewpoints. Jewish-American Princess is capitalized as another stereotyping pejorative proper name. Our article gives no other definition of "Social Justice Warrior" than as a pejorative stereotyped group identity. No one confuses "he's a warrior for social justice" with "he's a Social Justice Warrior." The first is not clear whether the meaning would be a pejorative, but the second, through the use of capitalization, is very clearly intended to denote the pejorative use as a proper name for a group. Not using capitals implies that "social justice warrior" is not always a pejorative proper name label for stereotyping individuals and that it somehow reflects their individual viewpoints. Proper names are capitalized per WP:MOSPN and do not use sentence case even if the proper name includes common nouns (i.e. South Africa, not south Africa). --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a proper name. No reason to capitalise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – No need. The majority of RSes seem to favor lowercase, and plenty of pejorative and slang terminology is uncapitalized. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Support because I agree that it does function as a Proper Noun as it functions as a title, ergo, should use title case. Zombiedude347 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- How does it function as a title? It's a term to describe someone, not a movement or a name. Just like "proper noun" (and not "Proper Noun"), it isn't capitalised. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a proper name, not noun. If it weren't, the common nouns in it could be rearranged without change of meaning. "warrior for social justice" is never used as a replacement for "Social Justice Warrior." It always defines a group or we ned to rewrite the article so that it's not a pejorative stereotype. --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose No evidence that use as a proper name outweighs sentence-case usage. clpo13_(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a pejorative stereotype like "Jewish-American Princess?" --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Not neutral point of view

Disruption of this talk page

Recentism and POV

Term is downscale per Oxford English Dictionary

Organization of the lead

Cites in lede sect

Regular or capitalised title

Edits by Permstrump

SJW RPG

Further reading section

Organization of references

Language and Linguistics

Restoring this article

Requested move 6 April 2016

WikiProject Women