This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Social justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 15, 2005. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was SNOW keep. |
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."
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)
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)
@ RohenTahir: Please read the sources provided dealing with the challenges of globalisation, please read the wikipedia article on Grassroots for more context and sourcing. Unless you can source that the drive for 'social justice' is not from the ground up, then you cannot overturn the wording by removing it or referencing things in your edit summaries that are not even mentioned. That the Democratic Party may reflect 'social justice', that members may identify as Democrats, or that support social justice is irrelevant to the statement. They are also a singular example, not necessarily a global one, which is driven by multiple socio-economic factors. Even if the Democrats were in fact an example of not being 'grassroot', the notion of a political party driving 'social justice' is not the nature of discussion within this article, which is specifically not about "political" forces (although the outcomes may themselves be political it is not necessarily a requirement). Koncorde ( talk) 06:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Global: √ Movement: √ Goals are what the article says: √ Grassroot: X RohenTahir ( talk) 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I just removed the first paragraph of the Criticism section (which had been sitting there with a CN tag since 2016, and rightly so) and wanted to explain the removal. Here’s the paragraph I removed, for reference:
Many authors criticize the idea that there exists an objective standard of social justice. Moral relativists deny that there is any kind of objective standard for justice in general. Non-cognitivists, moral skeptics, moral nihilists, and most logical positivists deny the epistemic possibility of objective notions of justice. Political realists believe that any ideal of social justice is ultimately a mere justification for the status quo. citation needed
The biggest issue (after the paragraph not being cited) is that the paragraph is treating the metaethical views of a bunch of philosophers who think objective moral facts either don’t exist or are unknowable as if those views speak directly to social justice. It’s not false that if social justice is an ethical issue (it is) and if there are no knowable objective moral facts (as these metaethical views assert), then that would mean there are no knowable objective facts about social justice. But we need an explicit connection to be made. Treating these metaethical views as if they’re direct criticisms of social justice would be like treating the views of someone who believes we’re living in a simulation as if those views criticize evolutionary biology. An implication can be drawn, but not explicitly.
A less-important issue is that the author of the paragraph is subtly mischaracterizing many of these metaethical views so as to lump them all together as “anti-ethical facts” views. I can go into this in greater detail if anyone wants, but the linked Wiki pages do a pretty good job of showing the relevant differences between these views.
If anyone thinks this was a bad edit or wants to discuss this further, just let me know. Thanksforhelping ( talk) 03:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Can being politically correct (a 1980s-90s-2000s social trend) be compared to a social justice warrior instead of being more a civil rights activist (the Civil Rights Movement) to literally changed the law in this country back in the 1950s-60s-70s? There is history of racial integration and opposition to hatred of Jews (anti-semitism) in the 1920s, 30 and 40s, including laws granted women the right to vote and the rising unpopularity of the KKK because they targeted white ethnics and Catholics at the time. And in the 2020s going to continue onward to the 2030s and 40s, we should make the article mention social justice like the PC fad are moralizing society on how they view social minority groups, their legal status and the destigmatization of anyone "different", the intro page doesn't mention (or does it need to) PCness. Adinneli ( talk) 17:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Social justice article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 15, 2005. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2016. The result of the discussion was SNOW keep. |
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."
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)
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)
@ RohenTahir: Please read the sources provided dealing with the challenges of globalisation, please read the wikipedia article on Grassroots for more context and sourcing. Unless you can source that the drive for 'social justice' is not from the ground up, then you cannot overturn the wording by removing it or referencing things in your edit summaries that are not even mentioned. That the Democratic Party may reflect 'social justice', that members may identify as Democrats, or that support social justice is irrelevant to the statement. They are also a singular example, not necessarily a global one, which is driven by multiple socio-economic factors. Even if the Democrats were in fact an example of not being 'grassroot', the notion of a political party driving 'social justice' is not the nature of discussion within this article, which is specifically not about "political" forces (although the outcomes may themselves be political it is not necessarily a requirement). Koncorde ( talk) 06:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Global: √ Movement: √ Goals are what the article says: √ Grassroot: X RohenTahir ( talk) 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I just removed the first paragraph of the Criticism section (which had been sitting there with a CN tag since 2016, and rightly so) and wanted to explain the removal. Here’s the paragraph I removed, for reference:
Many authors criticize the idea that there exists an objective standard of social justice. Moral relativists deny that there is any kind of objective standard for justice in general. Non-cognitivists, moral skeptics, moral nihilists, and most logical positivists deny the epistemic possibility of objective notions of justice. Political realists believe that any ideal of social justice is ultimately a mere justification for the status quo. citation needed
The biggest issue (after the paragraph not being cited) is that the paragraph is treating the metaethical views of a bunch of philosophers who think objective moral facts either don’t exist or are unknowable as if those views speak directly to social justice. It’s not false that if social justice is an ethical issue (it is) and if there are no knowable objective moral facts (as these metaethical views assert), then that would mean there are no knowable objective facts about social justice. But we need an explicit connection to be made. Treating these metaethical views as if they’re direct criticisms of social justice would be like treating the views of someone who believes we’re living in a simulation as if those views criticize evolutionary biology. An implication can be drawn, but not explicitly.
A less-important issue is that the author of the paragraph is subtly mischaracterizing many of these metaethical views so as to lump them all together as “anti-ethical facts” views. I can go into this in greater detail if anyone wants, but the linked Wiki pages do a pretty good job of showing the relevant differences between these views.
If anyone thinks this was a bad edit or wants to discuss this further, just let me know. Thanksforhelping ( talk) 03:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Can being politically correct (a 1980s-90s-2000s social trend) be compared to a social justice warrior instead of being more a civil rights activist (the Civil Rights Movement) to literally changed the law in this country back in the 1950s-60s-70s? There is history of racial integration and opposition to hatred of Jews (anti-semitism) in the 1920s, 30 and 40s, including laws granted women the right to vote and the rising unpopularity of the KKK because they targeted white ethnics and Catholics at the time. And in the 2020s going to continue onward to the 2030s and 40s, we should make the article mention social justice like the PC fad are moralizing society on how they view social minority groups, their legal status and the destigmatization of anyone "different", the intro page doesn't mention (or does it need to) PCness. Adinneli ( talk) 17:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)