Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Social justice
Category:Social justice was listed for deletion on January 17, 2005. No clear consensus with a slim 4-3 Delete majority. Will be posting to VFD for further discussion. RedWolf 18:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Category_talk:Social justice, where it got no reply)
"This category includes disparate topics which pertain in one way or another to matters of the human condition by creating a social structure which is more democratic, just, and considerate of individuals from all social stations."
How is this anything other than an extremely POV criterion for a category? Moreover, I'm not even sure it's possible to develop an NPOV one -- most everyone involved in politics believes they're working for social justice in one way or another. It's like having a category for "Beauty" and adding it to various artistic works judged to beautiful. RadicalSubversiv E 11:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. This is in no way a classification—it can at best be an index for a personal essay. Delete it. Postdlf 07:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Massively POV. For instance, Howard Zinn is in this category; conservatives and many centrists believe that implementation of his ideas would make (and have made) the human condition worse, not better. Personal political beliefs apparently determine what belongs in this category, which is doubleplusungood. --Kevin Myers 16:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Claiming that an ideology improves social justice may be POV, but reporting that it claims to improve social justice is NPOV. Its not true that all ideologies claim to directly put social justice for the individual first — many explicitly choose the state, the market or god(s) over the individual. Instead of deletion, how about clarifying the description and balancing the selection of articles? The normal wiki process can decide what goes in or out, just as it decides claims made in individual articles. Whether people disagree with Howard Zinn is irrelevant. Jihg 17:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not the category that needs deletion, it's the description of the category that needs to be NPOV'ed. It would join several other categories we have where the criteria is not "everyone agrees that it meets this criterion" but "it is argued by a substantial number of people that it meets this criterion" -- Category:Cults, for instance. Would you argue that that category needs to be deleted because whether a particular active group is a "cult" will always be a matter of disagreement? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Defining what belongs in a category like "cults" is similarly problematic, but there is at least some general agreement as to what objective standards are used to define a cult. There is no such agreement as to what defines "social justice" -- it is a highly subjective standard. For example, a contributor might decide to add Ronald Reagan to the social justice category, citing Reagan's opposition to Soviet oppression as reason for inclusion, since Reagan clearly believed that social justice was served by confronting the "evil empire." So, those of you who support this category: Does Reagan belong in it? If not, why? If so, we'll go ahead and add him. --Kevin Myers 16:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- "there is at least some general agreement as to what objective standards are used to define a cult."There is? That's news to me. I wonder why there are so many tooth-and-nail fights about whether any such objective standards even exist or whether they're all inventions of the evil anti-cult movement, then. As for Reagan, frankly, the only reason that someone would decide to try selling him as someone whose policies showed a focus on "social justice" would be to try and make the standard as murky and ill-defined as possible and then complain that it's too murky and ill-defined to work with. As you are doing. I could bring up similar self-parodying "counter-examples" -- why don't we put Hitler in there! He clearly thought he was doing social justice for the Aryan race! -- but just because a mitten breaks when you try to put your foot in it, and a foot can be argued to be a lot like a hand, one has not proved that a mitten is too useless a thing to wear on one's hand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You've illustrated my point perfectly. I mean that sincerely without any negative attitude. You suggest that Reagan, like Hilter (!), has nothing to do with "social justice"; many of Reagan's supporters would honestly disagree. Clearly, the criteria for this category is dependent upon personal political ideology, and thus the category is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 19:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like we have to agree to disagree, then. I didn't say that Reagan had nothing to do with social justice -- if you want to be that technical, you could probably find some things that Hitler did that would count as social justice. You could probably even find supporters of both, even today, who would honestly believe that all the things those two did which could be counted as "social justice" outweigh all those things that slap social justice in the face. And again, I direct your attention to Category:Cults. Do you think there is any single organization in that list which doesn't have its adherents that would swear up and down that they don't fit the definition for a cult? The cult's supporters honestly believe they're not in a cult; Reagan's supporters honestly believe that Reagan gave a lot of thought to civil liberties and social justice. From this simple fact -- "someone out there disagrees" -- we cannot deduce that the criteria are so vague that we need to delete the category. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You've illustrated my point perfectly. I mean that sincerely without any negative attitude. You suggest that Reagan, like Hilter (!), has nothing to do with "social justice"; many of Reagan's supporters would honestly disagree. Clearly, the criteria for this category is dependent upon personal political ideology, and thus the category is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Kevin Myers 19:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- "there is at least some general agreement as to what objective standards are used to define a cult."There is? That's news to me. I wonder why there are so many tooth-and-nail fights about whether any such objective standards even exist or whether they're all inventions of the evil anti-cult movement, then. As for Reagan, frankly, the only reason that someone would decide to try selling him as someone whose policies showed a focus on "social justice" would be to try and make the standard as murky and ill-defined as possible and then complain that it's too murky and ill-defined to work with. As you are doing. I could bring up similar self-parodying "counter-examples" -- why don't we put Hitler in there! He clearly thought he was doing social justice for the Aryan race! -- but just because a mitten breaks when you try to put your foot in it, and a foot can be argued to be a lot like a hand, one has not proved that a mitten is too useless a thing to wear on one's hand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Defining what belongs in a category like "cults" is similarly problematic, but there is at least some general agreement as to what objective standards are used to define a cult. There is no such agreement as to what defines "social justice" -- it is a highly subjective standard. For example, a contributor might decide to add Ronald Reagan to the social justice category, citing Reagan's opposition to Soviet oppression as reason for inclusion, since Reagan clearly believed that social justice was served by confronting the "evil empire." So, those of you who support this category: Does Reagan belong in it? If not, why? If so, we'll go ahead and add him. --Kevin Myers 16:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Too vague. (Social justice organizations, OTOH, are clearly identifiable) -Willmcw 20:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, it's well populated and useful. People who disagree with the general thrust of the social justice movement might still find it handy to have all articles on the subject grouped. There are other categories whose name implies some value judgement: Category:Feminism, Category:Terrorism, Category:Propaganda, Category:Imperialism. Neutrality doesen't require neutering. A cross reference to other views on social justice could provide balance, say: "Others hold that much done in the name of social justice has had a contrary effect, see e.g. Libertarianism." --agr 03:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's well populated because it's so vague or amorphous. Right now the category mostly consists of a seemingly random assortment of articles from other, well-defined categories: Category:Human rights, Category:Civil Rights, Category:Pacifism, and Category:Labor organizers, and their various sub-categories (Category:Human rights bodies, Category:Civil rights activists, etc.), along with a sprinkling of "governmental social welfare program" articles (which actually might need a category created). Some of those categories are very well populated, and there's no reason why a great many more articles from all of those categories couldn't be added to Category:social justice as well; eventually, they probably will be added. And since "social justice" is more of a general notion rather than a clearly defined category, more categories might be imported wholesale as well (articles about gay rights, feminism, democratic revolutions, etc. are bound to wind up here). Would a category that ginormous still be useful?
- And, at the risk of repeating an as-of-yet unanswered question, what exactly are the criteria for including or excluding articles from this category? Clearly Ronald Reagan doesn't belong, for reasons having to do with cults and Hitler's mittens or something. ;-) But does anarcho-syndicalism belong in this category? Does Susan Sontag? Does the Emancipation Proclamation? What about Simón Bolívar? People who have voted "keep" seem to indicate that the criteria is self-evident. If the category is kept, shouldn't the criteria be more clearly defined? --Kevin Myers 05:47, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. There is something loosely called "The Social Justice Movement." Those who believe they are involved in it certainly know who they are. True the definition of Social Justice (there is a Wikipedia article on the topic) can be variable according to point of view. At the same time it is useful for the reader to have access to a collection of articles that otherwise would have nothing to relate them one to the other. The term "Social Justice" means a lot more to people involved in what is sometimes called the "The Movement" than to anyone for whom this has not been a passion. There is a reference to "Social Justice people," for example, referring to individuals who work for Social Justice. The reader can be the judge as to whether an article meets their standard of "Social Justice." But the reader has, at least, the opportunity to make that judgment if this category remains. Also, just because something (or someone) is controversial (Howard Zinn as referenced above) does not raise a POV issue. There is always controversy around Social Justice. Some may even see the term itself as anti-American. All the more reason within a society that permits free speech to allow readers to explore the topic through this category and be their own judge (I might be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Reagan would have identified himself with the Social Justice Movement). --P D Sheehy 04:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)