![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I reverted the recent revert of the page because of the way in which the term "social justice" was used. As the term is controversial more neutral language is needed. Many do not see social justice as true justice and as such it would not be neutral to speak of it as though it exists in it's own right. It may very well, but while the controversy remains it has to be refered to more abstractly. Think of it analogously to speaking of pink unicorns. Those who do not agree social justice is real would think of the concept analogously to that. As such it would not be objective to speak of pink unicorns in a way that implied they were real. Spoisp —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
Archived talk prior to above thread. I don't want to get involved in the distasteful debate here, with the repellent attempts to cast the subject as " Social Justice Rhetoric", an obvious right wing slant on the topic. Clearly, there is an objective thing, corresponding to the article title and it would be different from any rhetoric pro or con. No doubt the individuals pushing their opinion that the very term is an offense to them will continue to do so unless there's an intervention to enforce NPOV. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The term social justice appears in the words of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey here: [1]. עדירל ( talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The definition of "social justice" itself is unsourced, and smacks of neologism: all justice is social. There is none where there is only one person. The tone of the article appears biased toward promotion of the concept. Suggest total rewrite to eliminate non-NPOV tone. Kasyapa ( talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)kasyapa
With Glenn Beck's recent attack on social justice as a common theme of Naziism and communism, I'd advise everybody to watch this article with particular care. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
By all means! Sanitize this article from all criticism!!! What pointless people you are. 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Lets be fair, though Glenn Becks efforts are quite misinformed, its easy to see how hes confused. Social Justice and Communism have MANY parralels and really are quite similar. Their difference lies only in a matter of degree. Social Justice is the idea that we should bring the richest and the poorest closer to the middle class by using regulations, but that we should generally let the free market system do its thing outside of that. Communism says the same thing, but that instead of some regulations to help only the poorest of society, we should force everyone to have exactly the same economic conditions. Its the difference between believing in a minimum wage and believing in a fixed wage for everyone. To a free market capitalist like Beck, both seem pretty unamerican. And you have to admit, hes not without cause. The poor implementation of well intentioned, but badly written social justice bills is largely what is destroying America right now (Social Security, for example) and there really are quite a few communists mixed in with the social justice democrats these days. Its getting so bad that at times its hard to tell which is which anymore. People also tend to demonize communism. Communism is nothing more than another idea. An idea that proved to be stupid. We dont say that people who believed that the world was flat are going to hell, they were just mistaken, thats all. Whether the ideals of social justice are mistaken or not, and whether pure capitalism is really the way to go remains to be seen as neither philosophy has really ever been given a fair shot at governing society without lots of other factors being pulled in to the mix and distorting the results.
97.118.13.121 (
talk)
03:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Matt
AMEN!!!
This comment "The term appeared before the 1800s, including in the Federalist Papers..." is an obvious distortion typical of the political slant of wikipedia. In the Federalist Papers, No. 7, Hamilton uses the term to refer to the preservation of property rights, and to include the citation here is clearly misleading, and a deliberate distortion. 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Edition, online, Oxford University Press)
· adj. 1 of or relating to society or its organization. Ø of or relating to rank and status in society: a woman of high social standing.
· n. 1 just behaviour or treatment. Ø the quality of being just. 2 the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.
Thus Social Justice defines or relates to rank and status in behavior and law. One's rank and status defines how one is judged. The higher the rank and status defined in society, the more you can get away with things that the lower rank and lower status can not get away with. Social Justice is "un-equal justice"? Jrcrin001 ( talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
To add further to this discussion, and hopefully to a more complete article, I provide the following as research. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 05:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Social Justice defined via the top web cites via Bing & Google.
Dictionary.com Main Entry: social justice Part of Speech: n
If you ask a lot of people to define social justice you’re going to get many different definitions. Definitions will be based on a variety of factors, like political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy. If you ask a postmodernist about this concept, he or she is likely to tell you it’s a fairytale that is not in any way achievable in any form of society.
(What folows in this article shows that there is no one definition of Social Justice. It can mean what you want it to mean. From the far left in politics - not covered in the wiki article - to its popular use in religion, immigration, racial issues, et cetera.)
The distribution of the benefits and the hardships in society, together with the way they are allocated. Geographers are particularly concerned with the spatial expression of social justice; where do the advantaged and disadvantaged groups live, why do they live there, and what is the connection between their place of residence and their future advantage or disadvantage (D. Harvey 1996; D. M. Smith 1994, 2000).
Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.
Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.
The term “social justice” has roots also in law and political theory. This quote captures the basics:
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law.[1] … This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust." … In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] … Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of "fair play."
[1] James. W. Vice, "Neutrality, Justice, and Fairness," (Loyola University Chicago), available at http://www.ombuds.uci.edu/JOURNALS/1997/neutrality.html. [2] Nicholas Rescher, Distributive Justice. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1982), 5. Both cited in: Maise, Michelle. “Principles of Justice and Fairness.” Beyond Intractability. Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. 1 Jun. 2005. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/development_conflict_theory/>.
SEE ALSO:
I was reading this article trying to get a better understanding of the term "social justice" and I noticed that it includes a several paragraph "advertorial" for Islam and how it promotes social justice, that contains no citations whatsoever (except for cryptic Qu'ranic verses). It is fine to include a neutral and referenced overview of the Islamic views on social justice - but it is not fine to reflect the writers' personal belief that Islam is the be all and end all of social justice. Examples:
Islam is both a religion and a comprehensive way of life and exemplifies justice for its practitioners. "It is a formula that satisfies anyone’s moral and spiritual needs as well as natural aspirations"
Unless someone can improve this and make it neutral and useful, I nominate that the section be heavily edited down to a stub for someone to improve according to Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality (no religious glorification) and proper citations. Clearlight418 ( talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The following statement is in the Islam section:
I think it represents synthesis because a true statement that non-Muslims are discriminated against in Islamic societies is juxtaposed against true statements about Islam and social justice, without any source making a connection between them. There is no reason for the joining word "However" and there is no source for "a practice seemingly incompatible with most contemporary notions of social justice"—in fact, unless a source mentions dhimmis in connection with social justice, there's no reason for this article to mention them either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
To those trying to tag this article for deletion, I suggest reading the instructions at WP:Prod Specifically "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD."
"To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{
proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from the article"
and also "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for 'uncontroversial' deletion"
Or even just the text of the "PROD" itself:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." I suggest this article is far from being a candidate for deletion. Those who are trying to delete it have the burden of proof. So, please, cease to reinclude the tag. In fact the page says: "If this template is removed, do not replace it" Caballero//Historiador ☊ 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the linked sources, all I can see is that the term was one coined during the Gamergate controversy, and has no traction outside of that. Personally, I think including that section in the article at all gives WP:UNDUE weight to a term only used in WP:FRINGE circles. I propose deletion of the entire section on those grounds. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The section was the result of a deletion discussion, where the consensus was to merge the Social Justice Warrior article. If you want to override the current consensus you'll have to address all the arguments present there, and notify the editors involved as they may be interested in further debating. Diego ( talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not support this as its own section- I barely support including a definition. Given that a definition is pushing WP:UNDUE, and as a section it's pretty WP:POV, I've removed it. There's no consensus that this is necessary to include in the article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 02:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
In Internet culture, social justice warrior has been used as a pejorative neologism for liberals, progressives, and anyone who advocates feminism online. Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a person believed to be overreacting to social inequality.
The sole referenced work in the 'social justice warrior' section is not to be cited without the authors' permission, per the first page. Has anyone sought or gained such permission? Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that social justice warrior redirected here. Looking at news sources, The Washington Post has a detailed article here about the term. Since that article has a lot to say about the term per WP:NEO, I would support a stand-alone article. MOS:NEO also says, "Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources," and with the term becoming a dictionary entry, an article focusing on its background would be particularly informative to readers. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to search for SJW and got redirected to this article(SJ), which I find does not mention the term in any useful fashion. Now you can have your redirect, or you can keep SJW out of this article, but you can't do both. I don't frankly give a fuck which you choose, but it is a choice that has to be made. Greglocock ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"In Internet culture, "social justice warrior" has been used as a pejorative neologism for perceived liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness online.[62][63][64] Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation.[65][66]"
This sentence is my only problem with this article. I can't see how "insinuating pretense" could mean anything other than presenting a point of view? The word "insinuate" being used to insinuate in and of itself simple antagonism? Which is then described as pretense, essentially saying "i know in my deepest heart what i believe is the truth and i know you are lying! (pretense) what's more you are lying a little too loudly for my comfort level (insinuation)". it's a fight that only ends in murder. 70.162.140.74 ( talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the section. Reviewing the article's edit history -- as well as this talk page -- it appears that many editors have objected to the material, and a single editor keeps restoring it. That indicates a lack of consensus for its inclusion. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Of potential interest to editors/watchers of this page, the University of San Francisco's Gleeson Library is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles about social justice reformers and reform movements.
This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see USF's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Per recent reverted edits please see the MOS for See Also inclusion MOS:SEEALSO and related topics to wit;
This is not suitable for this article - nor is it required, and the discussions above largely outlines the reasons why it was seen not to have it included as a topic within the article, so should not be linked. This continues pattern of attempting to shoehorn references to a slur because it happens to be using the same language. That's like going through every computer game or IT related article and linking to nerd, or other pejoratives. It is not required, and offers no value as a navigational tool. Koncorde ( talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I added Social Justice Warrior to the "See also" section because it didn't belong in the "Criticism" section, where another editor had put it. I don't feel strongly about including or excluding it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly it should be under see also. The only reason it's not in the article elsewhere is because people are POV pushing it out -- from section, to criticism, to see also, to completely gone. Victory! We hate the term so much that they we are going to fight this hard to purge it from the see also section? Is it that big of a deal? Come on. This would be like black people going crazy over the Nigger article. It's an encyclopedic term. And so is this. That doesn't mean it's a good term. Put down your swords. Ghost of hugh glass ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
−
I suppose that analogies are like ice cream flavors, or perhaps like more ingrained predispositions. What works for one, may not work for another. I added the spaghetti's, in part, to buttress the point already made. I like Koncorde's suggestion of a "list of pejorative used by critics" in which a wikilink to Social Justice Warrior may fit. And regarding the previous comment, rather than accusing, please, bring persuasive arguments ( WP:NPA). If you carefully read the exchange here, you will see that there is a genuine interest to make this article as encyclopedic as possible, one that is fair. If I see Koncorde's point correctly, the argument is that rather than informing, the wikilink would confound. There is nothing in this article that would directly contradict or correct the confusion that the association would create. So, it is not simply of no use, but it is unhelpful. The list, as suggested above, may work better. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is written with an obvious liberal bias. I don't see any dissenting opinions. A political article on this website should be fair and balanced. JT ( talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi VictorD7. You believe that the notion of there being 'unspoken barriers' to something is controversial. Because you believe this, you have 'perceived' to it, which seems to be a violation of WP:WEASEL. If you believe the current content is sourced to opinion and not fact, the correct procedure is to attribute it. If you believe it is sourced to fact, but this fact is contentious (as displayed by providing other factual pieces that disagree), you can feel free to add perceived or contentious or what have you if you can provide those sources which disagree. Can you provide sources which disagree? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
During the History section of the Social Justice page (under Aristotle) there is no source given after a quotation, but there is one at the end of the paragraph (though the source only links to another Wikipedia article. During the Religious Perspectives section of the Social Justice page (under Judaism) the entire section lacks a citation, but has been appropriately labeled as needing citations.
Under the Social Justice Movements section of the Social Justice page, the editor only lists three 'Social Justice Movements'. However, there are many more prominent (and popular) movements that I feel could be included (i.e. Black Lives Matter, Women's Rights, etc.)
BDarsow ( talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Agree. This place needs a complete replacement or revamp. -- CheeseMasterX ( talk) 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
https://books.google.com/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false.
This link leads to a Google EBook titled Social Problems and Social Legislation, that is written by a couple authors and their students. There are no creditable sources attached to their findings. I do not find this resource reliable.
•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
https://www.thenation.com/article/resource-privilege/
This a link that is referenced on the wiki page. The Nation is known to be a progressive and liberal source. There has been a large feud between liberals and conservatives and is (what I believe) one of the many facets that plays a role in Social Justice (in The United States). I believe that this is not a neutral publication because of the fact that it is known to lean one way.
Oborn1zs ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Social justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The text of the criticism section seems to be largely copied verbatim from here: https://books.google.de/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is cited as a source, but the whole section would need to be put in quotes if it's copied verbatim, and there doesn't seem to be good reason to quote such a large section of text from another work verbatim.
Of course the individual quotes from the people cited can be included, but the narrative text should be completely re-written. - 2003:CA:83C9:1B00:21D3:A9CD:B867:4196 ( talk) 11:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
With all the perspective awarded to philoosophers and religions, there should be views from either various continents or countries for wider context of a better understanding of Social Justice as it affects other earthly geographical areas. IamBlueman ( talk) IamBlueman —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to move to take this quote out of the criticism section... I understand that this guy is a respected writer but the argument doesn't seem simple in a concise way, it seems simple as in nonsense. Plugging in another phrase... "Either 'organic solvent' has the same meaning as 'solvent' – or not. If so – why use the additional word 'organic?' We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if 'organic solvent' means something different from 'solvent' – then 'something different from solvent' is by definition 'insolvent.'" ...no? Sabriel~enwiki ( talk) 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A less inept analogy would be, "We divide all compounds between solvents and non-solvents. They divide all compounds between organic solvents and non-organic solvents." The categories are completely messed up. Since you used a qualifier that is a subcategory of solvents. The previous analogy is broken and wrong. Social Justice is not a subcategory of Justice, one Part Social and another Non-Social Justice. Just really bad attempt at analogy.
Justice as define by legal traditions and ethical theories is a complementary set with unjustice. All human relations are either just or unjust. What Jorwin-Mikke is stressing is how Social Justice is contradicting all these traditions and ethics, because of specific incompatible values. This deletion removes from the article a valid and insightful crticism of Social Justice, and decreases the quality and NPOV of the article. 177.157.251.62 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
177.157.251.62 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I note Sabriel has removed the quote, citing this discussion. There doesn't appear to be any consensus here that it was inappropriate or 'silly' as the edit summary described it. I second Werhdnt's interpretation of Korwin Mikke's critique and I'd like to see the quote restored to the article, unless someone can present a more robust argument for keeping it out. 1RM ( talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems strange there is no mention of Marxism, except under "Liberation Theology".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Völkisch equality was a Nazi form of social justice for Aryans/Germans. Xx236 ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
My request for sources wasn't answered I think, but here: Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice Princeton University Press. [9] Or a Brill publication published this year, Marx and Social Justice: Ethics and Natural Law in the Critique of Political Economy. There's no reason at all not to include Marxism. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
I reverted the recent revert of the page because of the way in which the term "social justice" was used. As the term is controversial more neutral language is needed. Many do not see social justice as true justice and as such it would not be neutral to speak of it as though it exists in it's own right. It may very well, but while the controversy remains it has to be refered to more abstractly. Think of it analogously to speaking of pink unicorns. Those who do not agree social justice is real would think of the concept analogously to that. As such it would not be objective to speak of pink unicorns in a way that implied they were real. Spoisp —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC).
Archived talk prior to above thread. I don't want to get involved in the distasteful debate here, with the repellent attempts to cast the subject as " Social Justice Rhetoric", an obvious right wing slant on the topic. Clearly, there is an objective thing, corresponding to the article title and it would be different from any rhetoric pro or con. No doubt the individuals pushing their opinion that the very term is an offense to them will continue to do so unless there's an intervention to enforce NPOV. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The term social justice appears in the words of Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey here: [1]. עדירל ( talk) 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The definition of "social justice" itself is unsourced, and smacks of neologism: all justice is social. There is none where there is only one person. The tone of the article appears biased toward promotion of the concept. Suggest total rewrite to eliminate non-NPOV tone. Kasyapa ( talk) 03:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)kasyapa
With Glenn Beck's recent attack on social justice as a common theme of Naziism and communism, I'd advise everybody to watch this article with particular care. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
By all means! Sanitize this article from all criticism!!! What pointless people you are. 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 02:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Lets be fair, though Glenn Becks efforts are quite misinformed, its easy to see how hes confused. Social Justice and Communism have MANY parralels and really are quite similar. Their difference lies only in a matter of degree. Social Justice is the idea that we should bring the richest and the poorest closer to the middle class by using regulations, but that we should generally let the free market system do its thing outside of that. Communism says the same thing, but that instead of some regulations to help only the poorest of society, we should force everyone to have exactly the same economic conditions. Its the difference between believing in a minimum wage and believing in a fixed wage for everyone. To a free market capitalist like Beck, both seem pretty unamerican. And you have to admit, hes not without cause. The poor implementation of well intentioned, but badly written social justice bills is largely what is destroying America right now (Social Security, for example) and there really are quite a few communists mixed in with the social justice democrats these days. Its getting so bad that at times its hard to tell which is which anymore. People also tend to demonize communism. Communism is nothing more than another idea. An idea that proved to be stupid. We dont say that people who believed that the world was flat are going to hell, they were just mistaken, thats all. Whether the ideals of social justice are mistaken or not, and whether pure capitalism is really the way to go remains to be seen as neither philosophy has really ever been given a fair shot at governing society without lots of other factors being pulled in to the mix and distorting the results.
97.118.13.121 (
talk)
03:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Matt
AMEN!!!
This comment "The term appeared before the 1800s, including in the Federalist Papers..." is an obvious distortion typical of the political slant of wikipedia. In the Federalist Papers, No. 7, Hamilton uses the term to refer to the preservation of property rights, and to include the citation here is clearly misleading, and a deliberate distortion. 129.133.127.244 ( talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Edition, online, Oxford University Press)
· adj. 1 of or relating to society or its organization. Ø of or relating to rank and status in society: a woman of high social standing.
· n. 1 just behaviour or treatment. Ø the quality of being just. 2 the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.
Thus Social Justice defines or relates to rank and status in behavior and law. One's rank and status defines how one is judged. The higher the rank and status defined in society, the more you can get away with things that the lower rank and lower status can not get away with. Social Justice is "un-equal justice"? Jrcrin001 ( talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
To add further to this discussion, and hopefully to a more complete article, I provide the following as research. Jrcrin001 ( talk) 05:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Social Justice defined via the top web cites via Bing & Google.
Dictionary.com Main Entry: social justice Part of Speech: n
If you ask a lot of people to define social justice you’re going to get many different definitions. Definitions will be based on a variety of factors, like political orientation, religious background, and political and social philosophy. If you ask a postmodernist about this concept, he or she is likely to tell you it’s a fairytale that is not in any way achievable in any form of society.
(What folows in this article shows that there is no one definition of Social Justice. It can mean what you want it to mean. From the far left in politics - not covered in the wiki article - to its popular use in religion, immigration, racial issues, et cetera.)
The distribution of the benefits and the hardships in society, together with the way they are allocated. Geographers are particularly concerned with the spatial expression of social justice; where do the advantaged and disadvantaged groups live, why do they live there, and what is the connection between their place of residence and their future advantage or disadvantage (D. Harvey 1996; D. M. Smith 1994, 2000).
Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.
Social justice encompasses economic justice. Social justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions. In turn, social institutions, when justly organized, provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development.
The term “social justice” has roots also in law and political theory. This quote captures the basics:
Taken in its broader sense, justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law.[1] … This sort of justice is often thought of as something higher than a society's legal system. It is in those cases where an action seems to violate some universal rule of conduct that we are likely to call it "unjust." … In its narrower sense, justice is fairness. It is action that pays due regard to the proper interests, property, and safety of one's fellows.[2] … Parties concerned with fairness typically strive to work out something comfortable and adopt procedures that resemble rules of a game. They work to ensure that people receive their "fair share" of benefits and burdens and adhere to a system of "fair play."
[1] James. W. Vice, "Neutrality, Justice, and Fairness," (Loyola University Chicago), available at http://www.ombuds.uci.edu/JOURNALS/1997/neutrality.html. [2] Nicholas Rescher, Distributive Justice. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc., 1982), 5. Both cited in: Maise, Michelle. “Principles of Justice and Fairness.” Beyond Intractability. Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. 1 Jun. 2005. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/development_conflict_theory/>.
SEE ALSO:
I was reading this article trying to get a better understanding of the term "social justice" and I noticed that it includes a several paragraph "advertorial" for Islam and how it promotes social justice, that contains no citations whatsoever (except for cryptic Qu'ranic verses). It is fine to include a neutral and referenced overview of the Islamic views on social justice - but it is not fine to reflect the writers' personal belief that Islam is the be all and end all of social justice. Examples:
Islam is both a religion and a comprehensive way of life and exemplifies justice for its practitioners. "It is a formula that satisfies anyone’s moral and spiritual needs as well as natural aspirations"
Unless someone can improve this and make it neutral and useful, I nominate that the section be heavily edited down to a stub for someone to improve according to Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality (no religious glorification) and proper citations. Clearlight418 ( talk) 04:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The following statement is in the Islam section:
I think it represents synthesis because a true statement that non-Muslims are discriminated against in Islamic societies is juxtaposed against true statements about Islam and social justice, without any source making a connection between them. There is no reason for the joining word "However" and there is no source for "a practice seemingly incompatible with most contemporary notions of social justice"—in fact, unless a source mentions dhimmis in connection with social justice, there's no reason for this article to mention them either. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
To those trying to tag this article for deletion, I suggest reading the instructions at WP:Prod Specifically "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD."
"To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{
proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from the article"
and also "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for 'uncontroversial' deletion"
Or even just the text of the "PROD" itself:
"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." I suggest this article is far from being a candidate for deletion. Those who are trying to delete it have the burden of proof. So, please, cease to reinclude the tag. In fact the page says: "If this template is removed, do not replace it" Caballero//Historiador ☊ 19:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing the linked sources, all I can see is that the term was one coined during the Gamergate controversy, and has no traction outside of that. Personally, I think including that section in the article at all gives WP:UNDUE weight to a term only used in WP:FRINGE circles. I propose deletion of the entire section on those grounds. -- KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 15:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The section was the result of a deletion discussion, where the consensus was to merge the Social Justice Warrior article. If you want to override the current consensus you'll have to address all the arguments present there, and notify the editors involved as they may be interested in further debating. Diego ( talk) 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not support this as its own section- I barely support including a definition. Given that a definition is pushing WP:UNDUE, and as a section it's pretty WP:POV, I've removed it. There's no consensus that this is necessary to include in the article. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 02:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
In Internet culture, social justice warrior has been used as a pejorative neologism for liberals, progressives, and anyone who advocates feminism online. Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a person believed to be overreacting to social inequality.
The sole referenced work in the 'social justice warrior' section is not to be cited without the authors' permission, per the first page. Has anyone sought or gained such permission? Thanks. Dumuzid ( talk) 13:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that social justice warrior redirected here. Looking at news sources, The Washington Post has a detailed article here about the term. Since that article has a lot to say about the term per WP:NEO, I would support a stand-alone article. MOS:NEO also says, "Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources," and with the term becoming a dictionary entry, an article focusing on its background would be particularly informative to readers. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to search for SJW and got redirected to this article(SJ), which I find does not mention the term in any useful fashion. Now you can have your redirect, or you can keep SJW out of this article, but you can't do both. I don't frankly give a fuck which you choose, but it is a choice that has to be made. Greglocock ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"In Internet culture, "social justice warrior" has been used as a pejorative neologism for perceived liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness online.[62][63][64] Frequently initialized as "SJW", the term is used to insinuate pretense and as a general shorthand for a disingenuous person engaging in social justice arguments to raise their personal reputation.[65][66]"
This sentence is my only problem with this article. I can't see how "insinuating pretense" could mean anything other than presenting a point of view? The word "insinuate" being used to insinuate in and of itself simple antagonism? Which is then described as pretense, essentially saying "i know in my deepest heart what i believe is the truth and i know you are lying! (pretense) what's more you are lying a little too loudly for my comfort level (insinuation)". it's a fight that only ends in murder. 70.162.140.74 ( talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the section. Reviewing the article's edit history -- as well as this talk page -- it appears that many editors have objected to the material, and a single editor keeps restoring it. That indicates a lack of consensus for its inclusion. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Of potential interest to editors/watchers of this page, the University of San Francisco's Gleeson Library is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar to improve articles about social justice reformers and reform movements.
This is a great way to get access to university library databases and other resources while making an impact in areas you may already contribute to. For more information, including an overview of library resources, see USF's Visiting Scholars page. Thanks. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 14:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Per recent reverted edits please see the MOS for See Also inclusion MOS:SEEALSO and related topics to wit;
This is not suitable for this article - nor is it required, and the discussions above largely outlines the reasons why it was seen not to have it included as a topic within the article, so should not be linked. This continues pattern of attempting to shoehorn references to a slur because it happens to be using the same language. That's like going through every computer game or IT related article and linking to nerd, or other pejoratives. It is not required, and offers no value as a navigational tool. Koncorde ( talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I added Social Justice Warrior to the "See also" section because it didn't belong in the "Criticism" section, where another editor had put it. I don't feel strongly about including or excluding it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly it should be under see also. The only reason it's not in the article elsewhere is because people are POV pushing it out -- from section, to criticism, to see also, to completely gone. Victory! We hate the term so much that they we are going to fight this hard to purge it from the see also section? Is it that big of a deal? Come on. This would be like black people going crazy over the Nigger article. It's an encyclopedic term. And so is this. That doesn't mean it's a good term. Put down your swords. Ghost of hugh glass ( talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
−
I suppose that analogies are like ice cream flavors, or perhaps like more ingrained predispositions. What works for one, may not work for another. I added the spaghetti's, in part, to buttress the point already made. I like Koncorde's suggestion of a "list of pejorative used by critics" in which a wikilink to Social Justice Warrior may fit. And regarding the previous comment, rather than accusing, please, bring persuasive arguments ( WP:NPA). If you carefully read the exchange here, you will see that there is a genuine interest to make this article as encyclopedic as possible, one that is fair. If I see Koncorde's point correctly, the argument is that rather than informing, the wikilink would confound. There is nothing in this article that would directly contradict or correct the confusion that the association would create. So, it is not simply of no use, but it is unhelpful. The list, as suggested above, may work better. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is written with an obvious liberal bias. I don't see any dissenting opinions. A political article on this website should be fair and balanced. JT ( talk) 13:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi VictorD7. You believe that the notion of there being 'unspoken barriers' to something is controversial. Because you believe this, you have 'perceived' to it, which seems to be a violation of WP:WEASEL. If you believe the current content is sourced to opinion and not fact, the correct procedure is to attribute it. If you believe it is sourced to fact, but this fact is contentious (as displayed by providing other factual pieces that disagree), you can feel free to add perceived or contentious or what have you if you can provide those sources which disagree. Can you provide sources which disagree? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
During the History section of the Social Justice page (under Aristotle) there is no source given after a quotation, but there is one at the end of the paragraph (though the source only links to another Wikipedia article. During the Religious Perspectives section of the Social Justice page (under Judaism) the entire section lacks a citation, but has been appropriately labeled as needing citations.
Under the Social Justice Movements section of the Social Justice page, the editor only lists three 'Social Justice Movements'. However, there are many more prominent (and popular) movements that I feel could be included (i.e. Black Lives Matter, Women's Rights, etc.)
BDarsow ( talk) 00:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
Agree. This place needs a complete replacement or revamp. -- CheeseMasterX ( talk) 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
•Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference?
https://books.google.com/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false.
This link leads to a Google EBook titled Social Problems and Social Legislation, that is written by a couple authors and their students. There are no creditable sources attached to their findings. I do not find this resource reliable.
•Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
https://www.thenation.com/article/resource-privilege/
This a link that is referenced on the wiki page. The Nation is known to be a progressive and liberal source. There has been a large feud between liberals and conservatives and is (what I believe) one of the many facets that plays a role in Social Justice (in The United States). I believe that this is not a neutral publication because of the fact that it is known to lean one way.
Oborn1zs ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Social justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The text of the criticism section seems to be largely copied verbatim from here: https://books.google.de/books?id=7XtCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is cited as a source, but the whole section would need to be put in quotes if it's copied verbatim, and there doesn't seem to be good reason to quote such a large section of text from another work verbatim.
Of course the individual quotes from the people cited can be included, but the narrative text should be completely re-written. - 2003:CA:83C9:1B00:21D3:A9CD:B867:4196 ( talk) 11:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
With all the perspective awarded to philoosophers and religions, there should be views from either various continents or countries for wider context of a better understanding of Social Justice as it affects other earthly geographical areas. IamBlueman ( talk) IamBlueman —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to move to take this quote out of the criticism section... I understand that this guy is a respected writer but the argument doesn't seem simple in a concise way, it seems simple as in nonsense. Plugging in another phrase... "Either 'organic solvent' has the same meaning as 'solvent' – or not. If so – why use the additional word 'organic?' We lose time, we destroy trees to obtain paper necessary to print this word. If not, if 'organic solvent' means something different from 'solvent' – then 'something different from solvent' is by definition 'insolvent.'" ...no? Sabriel~enwiki ( talk) 10:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A less inept analogy would be, "We divide all compounds between solvents and non-solvents. They divide all compounds between organic solvents and non-organic solvents." The categories are completely messed up. Since you used a qualifier that is a subcategory of solvents. The previous analogy is broken and wrong. Social Justice is not a subcategory of Justice, one Part Social and another Non-Social Justice. Just really bad attempt at analogy.
Justice as define by legal traditions and ethical theories is a complementary set with unjustice. All human relations are either just or unjust. What Jorwin-Mikke is stressing is how Social Justice is contradicting all these traditions and ethics, because of specific incompatible values. This deletion removes from the article a valid and insightful crticism of Social Justice, and decreases the quality and NPOV of the article. 177.157.251.62 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
177.157.251.62 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I note Sabriel has removed the quote, citing this discussion. There doesn't appear to be any consensus here that it was inappropriate or 'silly' as the edit summary described it. I second Werhdnt's interpretation of Korwin Mikke's critique and I'd like to see the quote restored to the article, unless someone can present a more robust argument for keeping it out. 1RM ( talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems strange there is no mention of Marxism, except under "Liberation Theology".-- Jack Upland ( talk) 00:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Völkisch equality was a Nazi form of social justice for Aryans/Germans. Xx236 ( talk) 08:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
My request for sources wasn't answered I think, but here: Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice Princeton University Press. [9] Or a Brill publication published this year, Marx and Social Justice: Ethics and Natural Law in the Critique of Political Economy. There's no reason at all not to include Marxism. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)