Talk:Social justice

Article lead

Surely someone can come up with a better definition of "social justice" that the current one in the lead sentence: "Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being."

• "Refers" is a weak word here. (Don't tell us what SJ is about, tell us what it is.)
• "Creating" a society or institution is surely not integral to it.
• I'd wager it probably has something to do with justice in a society. But how is it distinguished from simple justice?

Also, does the current footnote 3, pointing to a Michigan bill designed to distinguish between birth and abortion, really belong in the lead sentence? I'm guessing this is a sign of some ideological wars that have transpired on this page. Surely a definition of social justice (the concept) can be formulated without applying it to each social issue. Frappyjohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of any discussion (and the continued absence of a definition of the article's subject), I went ahead and inserted a simple, tautologous definition: "Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society." Feel free to polish it, but keep it tautologous or add a citation. Thanks. Frappyjohn (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this subject, but I've got to say the new definition that was put in the lead is not very good. Basically, you've defined Social Justice by saying it is Justice in Society. This kind of goes against the general rule of "Don't use the word you're defining in the definition." I feel the older lead was better, but again, I'm not knowledgeable on the subject. Natt the Hatt (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WTF

The definition in the first paragraph, "complete economic equality of all members of society," is clearly POV. The word "complete" in there is overstating the equality proponents of Social Justice call for. Same goes for "wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone." The idea talked about in the third sentence didn't originate with Marx and suffers from the same problem as the previous sentences. And finally, the last two sentences in the opening paragraph of this article make a hash of marxism and entirely contradict each other. How does everyone recieve the "same amount of compensation" while receiving compensation "according to his need?" Also, the two cites in the first paragraph are to "The American Thinker" which is a quite conservative magazine and I doubt a reliable source. The content, word choices and unusual punctuation in the first paragraph is also incongruent with the rest of the article, leading me to believe this is vandalism or a newbie's sad attempt at contributing. I don't know anything about editing wikipedia pages and don't really care to learn, but I would encourage editors to do something about this silly opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.194.175 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Social Justice is a relatively new term for the unwashed masses, (of which I am a member), made popular since president Obama came onto the scene. There seems to be an effort made to conflate the concepts of rights, entitlements, redistribution and social safety net verses equal outcome. Gini coefficients, affirmative action, and quotas are not new concepts but the widespread belief that they axiomatically fall under a subset definition of justice is most certainly new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering Eugene Debs invoked the concept of social justice in his statement to the court upon being charged under the sedition act, I think it's fair to say the idea predates Obama by a number of years. Despite being an unwashed mass of one sort or another, you ought to educate yourself on the issue before embarrassing yourself further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.164.238 (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that wasn't very nice of you to say. I never said nor implied that it was a new concept. The term is new to pop culture and the definition is an evasive mystery, wrapped in an enigma, with long tentacles. PS...I am too arrogant to be embarrassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.246.183 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if that was overly rude. You seem to be confusing the term becoming popular recently and you learning or hearing the term recently. I believe you've experienced the latter and wrongly think the former is the cause. And, yes, the term is rather nebulous. So are many abstract concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.194.32 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what the first sentence of this article is actually trying to say? Hammersbach (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any effort to define Social Justice is both folly and counter productive. The very genius of the term “Social Justice” is how good it sounds and how ambiguous it is. “Social Justice” means 20 things to 10 people. When you define it, it becomes subject to analysis and evaluation. Only so long as it avoids serious scrutiny can it have diverse appeal, allowing each to imagine it as they think best without the impediment of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.47.17 (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Progressive?

How is social justice part of a series on Progressive politics?

Fr. Luigi Taparelli was a conservative Thomist who despised subjective philosophy. 3abos (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but today social justice is considered progressive, not conservative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So are we simply going to brand the article on what Social justice "was". Or what it has been throughout history? Also, as it is a very subjective term, many issues that conservatives worry about such as abortion may be seen as social justice. It seems that simply classifying social justice as 'progressive' is pushing a POV. 3abos (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you think the article is lacking, add sourced content to it. Please don't remove content, including navigation templates, just because you don't like it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

the issue is not what i like or don't like. But the issue is what is portrayed as information from a neutral persective. If something is added that presents a POV then it shouldn't be there. Don't you think?.

3abos (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact, not a POV, that social justice today is considered a progressive movement. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'maybe' it is 'today'. But Wikipedia isn't about today....i mean it is...well... an Encyclopedia!!!!! :P meaning that it should represent what a topic is not only today (in the last 50 years). But what it has been since the mid 1850s when the term was coined. 3abos (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, if you think the article is lacking historical perspective, please add sourced content. Don't remove content because you don't like it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As i said if something is POV then it must be removed. 3abos (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Then take it to the WP:NPOV/N. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to declare that something is POV, then it is incumbent on them as per WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is POV, preferably through independent reliable sources, rather than to simply declare it by fiat. So far as I can tell, there may well be maybe sufficient grounds for there to be one article on the concept of "social justice," and another on recent movements which relate to it, but that is another matter entirely. I think this concept, in general, probably most closely relates to the religion/philosophy field, and it might be a good idea to ask for some input from editors involved in those topics, maybe through an RfC, about issues regarding the notability of the concept and the comparative weight to give its various applications, but at this point I cannot see that anything like acceptable cause for removing content relating to the modern progressive social justice movement has yet been produced. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

'Social justice' has nothing to do with progressivism. Progressivism had standards, as one saw in Germany, Sweden, and all over the United States. It demanded progress, not kow-towing to the weak and wicked. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Cluttered images in lead

Most Wikipedia articles aspiring to a reasonable quality standard have a single image in the lead. It is generally of high-quality, if a single image, and genuinely illustrative of the article subject.

Unfortunately, the Eyegyptian portrait of Mr. Taparelli does not really meet any decent quality minimums, and the other image is frankly ridiculous. Is there not a useful image that could lead this article? 222.155.201.232 (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Social justice warriors" on Tumblr

Could use something about the weird recent epidemic of "social justice warriors" on Tumblr. 86.164.246.89 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Only if you can establish that it has been discussed by reliable sources to an extent sufficiently to make this alleged trend a notable aspect of the concept, as opposed to an ephemeral internet fad. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any of these meet Wikipedia standards, but here are a few pieces discussing it. I haven't checked the Laci Green entry to see if any of the references occur there, since much of this is in context of how they turned in to a lynch mob against her. Worth monitoring to see if more mainstream reliable sources occur. http://jezebel.com/5924950/internet-social-justice-mob-goes-batshit-on-well-meaning-sex-ed-activist ; http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/trigger-warnings-can-be-counterproductive ; http://www.dailydot.com/society/tumblr-social-justice-laci-green/ JamesG5 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Main Definition

Can somebody please fix the definition of social justice there really are too many problems with the way its worded. (Dont use the word in the sentence when defining it, no specification to what classes, can apply to individuals rather than groups, etc.) "Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kringe1 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

I hope some more real sources that I'm adding will improve this. While I tend not to delete things (rather than rewording/organising them), I'm concerned that most of the material in the present theory section is inaccurate. I'm particularly wondering whether the Islam material and "cosmic values" are really useful - we need better sources for those sections, if anything! And stuff that actually refers to social justice. Wikidea 19:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else seen SJWiki?

What is the relation to what they do and this article? I think they overlap if not are identical, right? MidnightBluebell (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors in internet culture

There's a whole chunk of text here that should be removed. It basically tries to set the term up as a 'good thing' before getting to the point about its use in internet culture. Everything from the beginning up to "...In internet culture," should be removed and seems like it would be more at home elsewhere in the article.

Furthermore, I feel in this section it should be linked back to the armchair warrior and radical chic pages for etymological reasons.

Finally, it should be noted that as a pejorative it has been breaking ranks from internet culture alone and starting to be used in mainstream (as per http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/ericallie/ ) Metalmunki81 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the first bit seems out of place. I think it is trying to show where the term was used before it became common in internet culture. If that needs a mention, then maybe in a separate paragraph at the end that starts something like "Before becoming common in internet culture, the term..."

I agree that the rest doesn't seem to get to the heart (or all of the heart) of what people have against those they call SJWs. I think CricketPinata's comment in this redit thread summarises it quite well. But I don't think we can treat that source as reliable, so it would help if we could find something similar in a more reliable source.

I would also expand on point 3 of CricketPinata's comment to say that the implication of the SJW label is a bit like "haters gonna hate". i.e. that SJW's see social injustice everywhere, because that's what SJWs do. Therefore, the suggestion is that if an SJW highlights a social injustice, it might not be an injustice at all. Of course, this is just my opinion; we need some sources.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows usage in reliable sources, and academic publications are considered the most reliable. If there are conflicting or different usages, neutrality policy requires us to explain all them; it wouldn't make sense to remove the content supported by the United Nations, giving evidence that the term has been used as a 'good thing' in your words, on the basis of some blog posts and opinion columns. Also please be careful not to add conclusions like the "before becoming common in internet culture..." thing if it has not been stated by any reliable source. Diego (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I've reworked the headers in the section to make it clear that these are different unrelated usages, and the first is not a set-up to the second. Diego (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The logic of that approach is the same as what I was saying, but it does avoid needed to make an explicit statement about something being before something else. If you are happy with it, I am happy with it. Yaris678 (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the armchair warrior article? "It describes activities such as speaking out in support of a war, battle, or fight by someone with little or no military experience." The word "warrior" there is more directly relevant. And SJWs are a lot of things but I ain't never seen them supporting war. Why don't we just link to slacktivism instead. I think slacktivism is relevant because a lot of the issues SJWs make a big deal about are really inconsequential in real life (like using the words "dumb" and "stupid" as insults is offensive for... stupid people, I guess, so we shouldn't use them) or just ridiculous (asking every new person you meet what their 'preferred pronouns' are even if they're obviously a dude or a chick). It makes the sjws/slacktivists feel like they're doing something important when they're not.

I'm talking about the "see also" links that were just added. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the links. They were off-topic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph is deeply misleading about the meaning of the term SJW and it does not represent the source properly. The source does not say anyone calls MLK/Gandhi SJWs. It says SJWs take MLK/Gandhi as examples to follow. Just because SJWs say they emulate MLK, does not mean MLK was an SJW. For example, Christian neo-Nazis may say they emulate Jesus. That doesn't mean Jesus was a neo-Nazi.

Furthermore, SJWs did not create the term SJW, their opponents did. Using a defensive attempt at redefinition of a pejorative as the primary definition is misleading, because that's not how 99% of people use the term in the real world. In the real world, 99% of people use SJW as a perjorative against a certain style of argumenter for social justice causes, and that real-world usage (which is sourceable) should be used here. 107.179.240.80 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The article misrepresented what the source says about Ghandi and King.

If you can find reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia's requirements that say "social justice warrior" is a pejorative, I would be happy to add it to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The next paragraph in the article as it stands has information with sources on the real and perjorative use of the term. 107.179.240.80 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that now. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

107.179.240.80, things don't work that way. You don't remove well sourced content from an academic reference because "the sentence as it is now basically content-free". The use of the term "Social Justice Warrior" predates the derogatory meaning, as the paper linked in the article shows. In Wikipedia, academic sources are preferred over newsreels. When a term has several different meanings stated by reliable sources, per Neutrality policy we include all of them; the recent removal of such reliable source introduces a bias in the article, hiding one of the adopted meanings. See also examples of positive usage in several books (not based in the "internet culture" meaning) in 1995, 2010, 2011, 2013[1].

BTW the literal sentence in the linked article is "These new social justice warriors separate themselves from the crowd by publicly exercising the right to free speech in order to right the social wrongs. With people like Mahatma Ghandi and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. as examples, they speak out on behalf of poor and needy people..." It never says that they are "examples to follow" as the IP asserted, they are examples of "these new social justice warriors". Diego (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I've removed the totally unsupported assertion that it's "most commonly used to cast negative implications, some have attempted to reappropriate the term as a neutral or positive source of identity." If this is something that is happening, it's certainly not discussed in the inline citations that were provided to support it. Diego (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How was the removal of the entire section justified by this discussion? I don't see it. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't think it's justified to remove. SJW is becoming a common term with a variety of meanings, both on the Internet and in mainstream society. If we do anything with it, we should maybe move it to another article or—if at some point in the future it becomes a very notable term—moved to its own article. Until then, I don't see any rationale, either in this discussion or outside of it, to remove it wholesale. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Replace this Page

I am trying to be objective and polite here. I can tell that someone has worked hard on this page. Unfortunately, I think they have failed, and that there is very little here that can be salvaged. This page needs to be scrapped, and someone else needs to write a new, more focused and more clearly written and a much more useful page.

The definition is vague and circular. I don't think the person who wrote this page knows what Social Justice is. The content really has no focus. This entry simply doesn't address any issues that a typical reader might have that concerns Social Justice. If you really want to discuss academic philosophy, build a new entry and link to it from here. You haven't provided enough information on John Rawles, Thomas Pogge or any of the other academics you mention here, to be useful to the average wikipedia reader.

Where is the discussion of Abolitionists in US history? Where is Theodore Parker (look him up on Wikipedia)? Where is the rise of American Progressivism and the Social Justice movement between 1885 and 1930? Where are Walter Rauschenbusch and Harry Emerson Fosdick? Dorthy Day? Martin Luther King? Where is the parable of the Good Samaritan and the overturning of the moneychangers' tables? While Christianity isn't the only driver for this concept and the United States isn't the only country affected; they are still very important.

The concept of Social Justice has always been the core of American political progressivism; yet you don't mention immigration, the rise of unions, populism, progressives like Bob LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, Wm. Norris, Lyndon Johnson, or all the Roosevelts. Biff alcatraz (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biff alcatraz. We do not "replace" existing articles about notable topics. Instead, we expand them, we improve them, we reference them, and we collaborate to make them better. So, you have given yourself an assignment. Improve this article, but do not mess with it in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Biff just misunderstood how things work. He appears new here (newer than even me!), so maybe he just didn't know what to do. But yes, we don't "replace" articles. If you think something is missing or lacking, bring it up here, or be bold and add it in yourself. In either situation, discussion will probably occur and we can collaborate to improve the article together. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Overreation

Is it really a "belief" that SJWs are overreacting to social issues, when they're against sexism yet advocate for gendercide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)