Talk:Virtue signalling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Al Cowens date is not 2004

References, including a newspaper, have wrongly accredited the date of a post by Al Cowens using the term Virtue Signalling -- another editor pointed out if you go to the archive of the post, the 2004 date is when Cowens entered that forum not the date of the post. As a video is linked to the tuba incident, and that video is from at least 2014 or 2015 the Cowens post has to be from that time. Therefor as his post is not the first usage of the term outside of signalling theory it loses any notability and as such it should be deleted, which has been done. --Wowaconia (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

LessWrong segment notability

Both the blog LessWrong and the author Eliezer Yudkowsky are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia allows blogs to be quoted if the citation is made to cite what was written in the blog. --Wowaconia (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Misleading use of source articles

Examples and quotations from Sam Bowman's article "Stop Saying Virtue Signalling" are being used to argue for the validity of the concept. This is misleading because, as the title describes, Bowman is not arguing in favour the existence of the concept. Rather, his article is about the different concept known as "signalling" which, as Bowman states in the article, "means exactly the opposite of what virtue signalling means".

Any use of this article as a citation for a pro-virtue signalling argument has no credibility and only serves to mislead the reader.[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Historian1 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The content has been removed from the lede completely, which I support. If this opinion piece is ambiguous, all the more reason to rely on reliable, independent sources to summarize for us, instead of asking editors to interpret sources ourselves. I have started a discussion on this problem below. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The part that you deleted was in the segment of this article that spoke about the academic use of the term signaling which the author, Same Bowman of the cited article supports, to quote his piece: "The term signalling does not mean the same thing as 'saying' or 'showing off' when it is used by economists or biologists. Signalling means credibly giving information that is difficult to prove just by saying it. For example, banks used to have very grand buildings. Any bank could claim to be safe, but only a bank that had lots of money could afford a grand office. Education is a classic example of signalling. It’s difficult to show to a potential employer that you’re smart and hard working, but only smart and hard working people can get a good university degree (in theory). Good university degrees might be partially about signalling ability to potential employers. That’s what signalling is. It’s a very useful concept."

Here we see he supports the original academic usage.

He takes umbrage at its new usage: "It means exactly the opposite of what virtue signalling means – it’s credible and honest." He defines "virtue signaling" in his article as a concept popularized by Bartholemew, "It has become popular to describe certain behaviour as ‘virtue signalling’. By this people mean, in the words of James Bartholemew (who helped to popularize the term, and who I like very much in every other respect), writing or saying things 'to indicate that they are virtuous'."

So citing Bowman to help explain the original and academic usage to differentiate from the newer pejorative usage makes sense and is not at odds with his thinking or his article. --Wowaconia (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is far too subjective. If you have reliable independent sources which support In the late 2000s the term began to be appropriated on internet forums and social media away from its academic meaning and turned into a pejorative you need to include it. That you are personally making this claim in Wikipedia's voice is not acceptable. Even if you are correct, it's still original research, and it's still not acceptable. Including a bunch of primary sources to support this conclusion is still original research, and is entirely undue, as well. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see a breakdown in my logic in including him in the segment about academic usage when his article supports that? Your definition of original research seems to be unique to yourself. Nor do the two sentences he is cited next to come close to the Wikipedia standards about Undue.---Wowaconia (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I assure you, I'm not alone in this interpretation. Can you find a reliable source which directly says this term has shifted to become pejorative? I am not looking for an example (the other section is a better place to explain why I think examples are insufficient) but a specific quote about this shift. If you can find such a source, that will dramatically simplify this discussion. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I've gutted a lot of content from this article, because I believe it was original research. Examples of usage must be supported as significant by reliable, independent sources, otherwise this is attempting to use Wikipedia to display research on the history of the term. This isn't the place to publish research, or to attempt to figure out which primary sources are significant and which are not. This is fundamental to Wikipedia's philosophy and goals, per WP:OR and WP:NOT.

The section on the LessWrong posts were especially poor. Citing an anonymous comment on a blog is completely unacceptable here. This is not even close to being a reliable source, and would absolutely need an independent source for multiple reasons. This hypothetical source would need to explain the significance of the comment, and this context would need to be included in the Wikipedia article.

The other sections had similar major issues, as well.

The article absolutely must summarize reliable, independent sources in a neutral way. Opinions, especially the opinions of non-experts, should only be used as a supplement to these reliable sources. This is not a good place to try and tease-out the origins of the term, or when it started being used as a pejorative. We must, instead, rely on reliable sources to do that work for us. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The posting of the LessWrong info marks it as an incident in time, this is verifiable that the incident took place at a time. The Wikipedia standard on original research is "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." The information on the LessWrong usage merely reports the usage and does not advocate any facts, allegations, or ideas. The inclusion here is not endorsing anything rather it reports that the beginning of a change in word usage. Yes, its in an internet forum but Wikipedia does not ban such social media when quoted to present the authors view as that of the authors. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA, therefore one can include President Trumps tweets that Climate Change is a hoax in an article showing his opinion, but not as a reliable source in an article discussing the process of Climate Change. The segment is clearly marked as how the phrase went from its academic meaning to a pejorative.-Wowaconia (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wowaconia: Being an incident in time is not automatically noteworthy, and is absolutely not sufficient justification for inclusion. If you want to talk about Trump and climate change, do so elsewhere, based on context provided by reliable, independent sources. The same standard applies here.
SOCIALMEDIA only applies tangentially here. A LessWrong post would only be usable as a source about the LessWrong poster. This article isn't about LessWrong, though, it's about virtue signaling. We would first need a reliable source to explain why the anonymous LessWrong poster's opinion is significant, such as being the first documented use for a specific meaning, or similar. Making such a claim without a source is original research.
This source is not reliable for statements of fact, so it's only usable as an opinion. It is properly attributed, but that's not the only concern here. We need to be able to explain, based on reliable sources why this opinion is being included at all. No sources currently included accomplish this for the LessWrong post.
If this is supposed to document the history of the term, it's absolutely OR, because it's a WP:PRIMARY source being used to imply (even if it doesn't explicitly say) a specific conclusion which isn't made by any source. If it's merely being used as an example of usage, than it's completely undue and utterly unreliable. We cannot and should not document every usage of a term we find, and we especially shouldn't include lengthy direct quotes of such usage without a very good reason.
In either case it has to go, and much of the rest of this content is also unacceptable for many other reasons. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The source shows usage, its mention is in a timeline of usage. Wikipedia does not have a blanket ban on Primary sources. It is significant because its the first usage moving it out of academia and into social media. A quote of a few sentences is not a lengthy quote by Wikipedia standards. The article is meant to show usage and how an academic term became a pejorative.

I understand that some people have strong opinions about the existence of this term, but the point of this article is to explain its divergent definitions and how they came to be - deleting the article or deleting most of it till it becomes uninformative will not magically cause the term to cease to be used in society. A quick Google search of the term will show its still active and being used by both sides of political debates in America and elsewhere. ---Wowaconia (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I have found and cited a post from Huffington Post U.K. that makes mention of the LessWrong usage and holds it as notable due to its early appearance.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What reliable source do you have for this being the first usage moving it out of academia and into social media? The popularity of a term, as demonstrated by google count, etc. must still be contextualized through reliable sources.
The Huffington Post source you added is from "the Blog". Huffington Post's blog content does not have enough editorial oversight or fact-checking to be considered a RS. As an WP:SPS, it would only be usable as an opinion, which isn't particularly helpful. This article was also published after the LessWrong claim was added to the Wikipedia article, which raises serious WP:CIRC concerns. It is highly plausible that Will Black got this information from Wikipedia and passed it along in his blog post. This neatly demonstrates both the problem with OR, and the problem with SPS. I hope I don't have to explain why circular referencing is totally unacceptable. Also, I previously removed that specific source as unreliable back in March, so adding it back obviously doesn't address my concerns. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion of episodes as notable follows that of the Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/12/24/virtue-signaling-and-other-inane-platitudes/YrJRcvxYMofMcCfgORUcFO/story.html

The Globe piece marks Wordspy as a source: http://www.wordspy.com/index.php?word=virtue-signalling

Originally our wiki-article here followed the Globe in its thinking that the first usage was in 2004, but an observant wiki-editor Watchsmart who saw that 2004 was the date the commentator had joined that community rather than the date of the comment.--Wowaconia (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I must not be explaining this very well. Neither of those sources answer my concerns. The Something Awful post was, presumably, from 2015, and that's a good catch. That means that WordSpy probably isn't too reliable by itself, but this has very little to do with the history of virtue signalling as a phrase or concept.
If you wanted to summarize the Boston Globe source, that would be a positive step. I would support leaving out the WordSpy claim, perhaps with a footnote explaining why. Finding a replacement for the earliest usage is original research. That's the problem, here. The Boston Globe source says nothing at all about LessWrong. Presenting this as the earliest usage in a certain loosely defined context isn't appropriate unless it can be supported by reliable, independent sources.
The Huffington Post article will also need to be removed again, per above. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

My concern is around the claim by James Bartholomew that he invented the term as a pejorative. It seems if we are not allowed to use primary sources that his claim wins by default, despite the fact that online archived pages show that he is at best over-reaching in his claim (and pretty self-congratulatory about his societal impact). It would seem that we are therefore forced to participate in a falsehood that is easily disproven by the smallest of efforts.--Wowaconia (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I respect that position, but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Why are there eight paragraphs about Bartholomew's one article? Functionally the entire section is sourced to this same single article (the Whole Foods stuff only makes sense as a supplement to that source for convenience, since it does not discuss virtue or Bartholomew). The last paragraph is more of his mistaken bragging. The level of detail is far out of whack for this one point.
Think of it this way: We are amplifying his claims in order to dispute them. This approach is a tactical one, and I do not think it's well-supported by Wikipedia's philosophy. If reliable sources do not discuss his use of the term in detail, and other than the Boston Globe article they don't, why are we? There is a mismatch which makes the article more confusing, and that's a problem.
Allow me to attempt to re-summarize this issue:
  • The Boston Globe published an article about the phrase.
  • This article said that Bartholomew claimed to have coined the term in 2015.
  • The article said that he did not coin the term, indirectly citing a usage from 2004.
  • A Wikipedia editor points out that this was a mistake on the part of the Globe's source.
  • Earlier uses of the term were then found by Wikipedia editors, demonstrating that Bartholomew was wrong about his claim.
Is this right? Please correct me if not. I am not disputing any one of these points, in case that wasn't clear.
If this is accurate, here's my proposal: The concept of toothlessly signalling one's position is ancient and universal. If this article is about slacktivism, hand-wringing, and other forms of posturing, it's going to need a total rewrite anyway. If it's about the phrase "virtue signalling", every mention should be based on a source that actually uses the phrase. With that in mind, we briefly summarize that the term was used by LessWrong in a couple of sentences without implying that we think it was the first usage. We don't know that, but we are currently insinuating that. We use the WordSpy source (such as it is) to support that it was used at PJ Media, again, in a couple of sentences.
We then use the Boston Globe article to summarize Bartholomew's use, instead of extensively explaining every beat from his article. The only thing granting this article any significance at all is the Globe coverage, and everybody agrees that he didn't actually coin the term.
I think we should attempt something similar with Coulter and VDARE, neither of which are even remotely reliable on their own. We can handle that separately, though. Grayfell (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

How can the Boston Globe be credible when it makes an easily disprovable error about 2004? It does not appear that the story was edited or edited with any precision. If we want to cite the Boston Globe's timeline we are again merely forwarding a falsehood. It would be the Boston Globe vs a Wikipedia editor using a pseudonym whose ability to read an archived post correctly was better than the Globes and if we must rely on a timeline that does not use Primary Sources this who would be called Original Research. It wouldn't matter what our eyes tell us, it would only matter what the Globe reports.

The Globe doesn't "indirectly" state that the phrase was in circulation by 2004 it boldly asserts it. "Bartholomew can be thanked for repopularizing virtue signaling, he didn’t coin it. Paul McFedries’s terrific Word Spy site records a message board use from 2004 that discussed 'Virtue signaling at its most pedestrian.'"

The Boston Globe is flatly in error. I don't see how its more Encyclopedic to spread falsehood in order to avoid primary sources. The discussion segments on these types of newspaper posts are where the audience corrects the reporters, but they are never acknowledged by the reporters or the paper as corrections. Yet if one goes to archives that these commentators are pointing to, one finds they are speaking the truth. I do not think the standard on primary sources is so strict as to force us to rely on sloppy and lazy reporting that can be easily discounted by the slightest of efforts.--Wowaconia (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I said indirectly citing a usage from 2004. The Globe did not cite Something Awful they cited another website that cited Something Awful. That's an indirect citation. Things like this make we question whether or not your giving my points serious consideration.
I agreed that the Globe article made a mistake which should not be ignored. Right now the article is doing a very bad job of explaining this for reasons I am trying to explain. I am not saying that we validate Bartholomew's claims. My point was to specifically decrease the amount of coverage of Bartholomew's one column based only on poor sources. If you don't think the Globe is reliable, you could take it up with WP:RSN or something, but making a single error doesn't invalidate the entire source. If it does, than Bartholomew's column is also invalidated for multiple errors it makes, so why are we spending eight paragraphs on it? Errors like this happen, even from reputable outlets. Filling the article with a comparatively large amount of detail about two obscure previous mentions damages the article and adds confusion. Grayfell (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Globe treated the claim that the usage in 2004 was valid. The question still arises do we suppress the truth because it has not been mentioned by commercial media? Several sources of commercial media and a JSTOR article put forward the claim that Bartholomew invented the term, including Bartholomew. Do we suppress the truth because of this or do we cite primary sources? --Wowaconia (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bartholomew did popularize the term, but his claim to invent it is just false. He does have multiple pages talking about it, thus the coverage in this wiki article. If we were to call him a media expert on the subject, I think that could be supported. He just is flatly not its originator.

His first article in 2015 on the subject: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/

His self-congratulatory claim to have invented it while apparently expressing faux regret: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/i-invented-virtue-signalling-now-its-taking-over-the-world/

The New Statesman repeating his claim that he invented the term: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/02/people-who-accuse-others-virtue-signalling-are-trying-stigmatise-empathy

The Washington Examiner repeats the Bartholomew claim: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/virtue-signaling-and-the-bathroom-wars/article/2600828

The British Vogue repeats the Bartholomew claim: http://www.vogue.co.uk/article/what-is-virtue-signalling-meaning

The JSTOR Daily also repeats Bartholomew's claim: https://daily.jstor.org/politics-of-kindness-2016/

A mention of him on the topic in the New York Times, thought they don't claim him as inventor - they don't cite anyone else: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/magazine/virtue-signaling-isnt-the-problem-not-believing-one-another-is.html

We have already seen the Boston Globe's acceptance of the 2004 idea in direct oppostion to Bartholomew. https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2015/12/24/virtue-signaling-and-other-inane-platitudes/YrJRcvxYMofMcCfgORUcFO/story.html

Well this claim of the Globe was picked up and repeated by the UK's Guardian in opposition to Bartholomew. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue-signalling-putdown-passed-sell-by-date

Internet archives show the term was brought into social media forums in 2009, but to show this we have to site primary sources. If we wish to suppress these sources, even the commercial media is at odds with one another on Bartholomew's role. I do not see how suppressing the truth is encyclopedic. I do not think Wikipedia's position on primary sources is as restrictive as you suggest. --Wowaconia (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Suppress the truth"? Seriously? Please try to assume good faith. Are you honestly trying to understand where I'm coming from? None of these sources justify this level of detail about Bartholomew's article, nor do they justify the extreme minutia from archived forum posts. We do not need to document the exact usage and context of these examples to point out that Bartholomew was wrong, nor do we need more than a footnote to point out that the Globe was also wrong. Do we have a reliably sourced reason to go into this level of detail? So far, I do not see one. Nothing about trimming this fat would be "suppressing the truth" as you so insultingly put it.
I have been trying to explain the situation as I understand it, and from that figure out a proportional way to explain that situation. Your replies suggest you think I'm trying to do something else. I don't understand what you think my agenda is, but if you cannot see or acknowledge the problems I'm describing, we need outside input.
Rather than talking in endless circles, I have made another edit towards a level of detail I think is appropriate. If you disagree, please explain why without assumptions about my motives. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I find it odd that you became personally insulted at the argument for keeping that information in the article. Surely it is not a ridiculous interpretation to say that deleting information is often used as an act of suppression. My intent was to preserve the actual first recorded usage outside of academia. Are you really suggesting that I misunderstood your intent to delete these things - the history of the page shows you mass deleted them on October 1st.

It also is odd to me that you insist that three or four sentences for a quotation is diving into minutia. I would argue that inclusion of the quotes shows the development of the term and its change in usage over time.--Wowaconia (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what you find "odd" about me, but I do find accusations of "suppressing truth" to be an assumption of bad faith. If you don't understand what I'm doing, please ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions. Your position about the quotes has already been made clear, but it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to show that shift in meaning unless reliable sources do. That's why this is WP:OR. It's using researched primary sources to demonstrate the history of the term without any reliable support at all. These two obscure quotes from obscure websites can only be used to demonstrate that the term was used. Explaining them imparts significance to them beyond anything supported by sources, which is subjective and non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I argued it would be suppressing the truth to keep it out, you obviously accepted that as you are now leaving at least part of it in. Hyperbole perhaps, but apparently what was required.--Wowaconia (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article isn't intended to be a comprehensive list of every fact about a topic, and using editorial judgement to decide what should and should not be included doesn't justify veiled insinuations. I left it in as a compromise. I do not think it improves the article, instead, this was an attempt to find a point of consensus. Are you going to try and throw that back at me by misinterpreting this as a lapse in judgement on my part, or will you accept that I'm trying to work with you? Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The intent of the use of the phrase was persuasive, not insulting. One can see that I do not single you out but said "Do we suppress the truth", meaning Wikipedia as a whole including myself. It was an argument over the standards around the use of Primary Sources, not over your character.-Wowaconia (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How was this term 'appropriated', exactly?

Right now the article says that the term was first used in academia, and then 'appropriated' to attack the left. The article then lists criticisms of the usage. This seems to be an attempt at poisoning the well when it comes to a phrase that is used by the authors' ideological opponents.

First of all, wikipedia is not a place for political debates, and so I don't think it's appropriate to spend this much time talking about how the term is 'bad'. Secondly, the attempt to claim that it was originally an academic term which was appropriated by the right seems to be entirely false. I have checked the sources on this page and see nothing to indicate that this term comes from academia. All I see is the book which mentions the term exactly once as a synonym for charismatic signalling and then never discusses it as a separate concept. Costly signalling is of course a real academic concept but seems to be unrelated to the actual use of this term.

For the sake of accuracy and neutrality, I suggest that we remove all references to academic use and reduce criticisms to maybe one line about how the phrase has recently come under attack. Aside from that, all that's relevant is the meaning of the term itself (opening paragraph is fine) and its origin (Less Wrong or internet blogs in general).

If anybody does not want me to make these changes, please explain why below.

Grobtak(talk) 22:57, 2 October 2017 (ECT)

Per above, the LessWrong still needs to be clearly established as significant to the term's history by sources, not through examples or original research. I agree with your concerns, but leaving that in would be replacing one problem with another. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then just replace it with "the term was originally used on blogs such as Less Wrong, but it's currently unclear who first coined the term." Right now it lists "academia" as the original source purely because academic sources are deemed more reputable, but every source on this page indicated that that's not accurate. As far as I can tell the phrase was used by the public long before academia used it, and has always had a negative connotation. The article should reflect that. Grobtak(talk) 22:57, 2 October 2017 (ECT)

-I used the word "appropriated" to indicate it was not a usage approved of by academia. If a better word can be chosen, I would support the change. If it is felt that the usage of "appropriated" is not neutral I have no problem with it being dropped completely. I merely wish to clearly indicate that this article describes how a word from academia was turned into a pejorative by usage in social media and provide a timeline of episodes showing that happening. Academia continues to use the term in its original definition. --Wowaconia (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate that this is actually true - see the above. If you can list any source indicating that this phrase was coined by academia, please do. Grobtak(talk) 22:57, 2 October 2017 (ECT)

The concerns over neutrality of this phrase seem very reasonable so I went ahead and changed the text to "be redefined".--Wowaconia (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The use of the term pre-exists its pejorative use. Here is a quote from a 2009 scholarly journal using the term in its academic sense, called "Signaling Virtue: Voluntary Accountability Programs among Nonprofit Organizations"
Mary Kay Gugerty
Policy Sciences
Vol. 42, No. 3 (Aug., 2009), pp. 243-273
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40270996?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
"This article argues that voluntary accountability and standard-setting programs among nonprofits arise in part as a result of information asymmetries between nonprofits and their key stakeholders. As a result, nonprofits have incentives to develop signals of virtue that can distinguish high quality, ethical organizations from lower quality or less ethical counterparts. In order to do so, they construct or join programs that require adherence to a set of standards. If the costs of joining these programs and complying with standards are high enough, then only high quality nonprofits will join, sending a credible signal to potential donors and authorizers. Club theory and the economics of certification suggest two key institutional components of signaling programs: the costs of compliance that are given by the strength of standards and the level of fees; and the strength of verification set through certification mechanisms, disclosure rules, and sanctions. Although there is an extensive literature on signaling and certification, the implications of these theories for the institutional structure of accountability programs have received fairly limited empirical evaluation to date, particularly with regard to nonprofits. As a result, we know very little about the determinants of program structure and strength. This article investigated some of these questions using data on the structure of 32 nonprofit accountability programs."

--Wowaconia (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, thanks for the info! That is indeed at approximately the same time as the first uses on blogs, as far as I can tell. However it still seems to me that these two uses of the term arose in parallel, as opposed to one co-opting the meaning of the other. Grobtak(talk) 14:46, 9 October 2017 (ECT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.88.85 (talk)

Your concern that the usages developed in tandem is reasonable. Here is an example of academic use before 2009:

Holy Tears: Weeping in the Religious Imagination Edited by Kimberley Christine Patton, John Stratton Hawley Copyright 2005, by Princeton University Press

Essay: Bridal Tears among the Oyo-Yuruba, pg. 176; authors: Jacob K. Olupona with Sola Ajibade

Google Books Link: [[2]]

"These traditional songs are rendered to provoke laughter in the midst of the tears that accompany the maiden's performance. Although tears and laughter appear contradictory, it is interesting to note, as Gustave Lanson observes, that tears can play a dual role, expressing sensuality on one hand and indicating virtue and goodness on the other. ...the ethnography of the ekun iyawo ceremony reveals it to be a rite of passage that employs metaphors of weeping and tears to convey poignant messages about Yoruba marriage practices. Spontaneous and feigned tears may be interpreted as signs of virtue signaling the bride's reflection on her past and future life in a critical moment of her transition to adulthood. Unlike the tears shed in burial celebrations, ekun iyawo are joyous tears, yet they signify anxiety, fear, and uncertainty, especially in seeking fertility and the protection of the ancestors. Ekun iyawo also challenges the assertion that the present situation in Africa -- where laxity in males and female sexual mores has fostered such epidemics as AIDS -- is due to the lack of a premarital sex taboo in traditional African societies. The strict and virtuous practices of sexual abstinence before marriage are signified in tears and weeping of the ekun iyawo ceremony, revealing numerous cultural structures, such as lineage, kinship systems, ancestral obligations, and virtuous ways of being."

--Wowaconia (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Here the concept is brought up in Economics book examining Sociobiology in 2003:

Signaling Goodness Social Rules and Public Choice Phillip J. Nelson and Kenneth V. Greene University of Michigan Press, 2003 https://www.press.umich.edu/17724/signaling_goodness

Here is a quote from University of Michigan Press' summary:

"Reputation seeking has profound effects on the nature of government policies and how they have changed over time. For many issues such as environmental, educational, and poverty programs one signals one's trustworthiness by advocating only one side of the issue (asymmetric "goodness"). As a result, government expenditures on these programs have increased over time because there has been a growth in the importance of this kind of reputation signaling.

As alternative explanations of public choice, neither narrow self-interest nor altruism works because of the free-rider problem involved in large group decisions. Signaling Goodness develops an alternative explanation—the theory of asymmetric 'goodness'—that successfully predicts both political behavior as well as the behavior of charity, the traditional bastion of altruistic theorizing. The authors show, for example, that the main conflicting motivation is also a reputational return - imitating the behavior of one's close friends and associates to signal trustworthiness to them. They find that those who have the greatest returns to imitation are those least likely to use 'goodness' signaling."

--Wowaconia (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It does look like the concept of virtue signaling in academia gains parlance only sometime after 1996. I looked up an article cited by the pieces above that seemed it might show an earlier usage from the 1990s, but it spoke of signaling wealth and increasing status.

A Signaling Explanation for Charity

Amihai Glazer and Kai A. Konrad The American Economic Review Vol. 86, No. 4 (September 1996), pp. 1019-1028

JSTOR link: [[3]]

Quotes from above:

"The desire to demonstrate wealth … to signal high absolute wealth…[or] signal relative wealth. Over a century ago John Rae (1834) and John S. Mill (1847) considered such a motive. The behavior of consumers who signal income is studied by other economists, and most elegantly in the work of Robert H. Frank (1984a, 1984b, 1985a, 1985b).

...charitable donations may be especially good signals to people who belong to a peer group but cannot see the big house or luxury car of another member. Impressing former college roommates who may live in other parts of the world may require a notice in the alma mater's alumni magazine.

…The date on charitable giving support the hypothesis that donors donate at least partly for signaling purposes rather than only to aid the recipient or to obtain satisfactions unrelated to status. Individuals who donate to signal their income will not make anonymous donations. In contrast, both the standard and the warm-glow models are consistent with anonymous donations. The data we collected show that anonymous donations are rare."

An even earlier piece cited in some of the articles above, does not speak about signialing to others but focuses on internal reactions within the giver.

Giving with Impure Alturism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence James Andreoni The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 97, Issue 6 (Dec., 1989) 1447-1458

Link to JSTOR article: [[4]]

"Another natural hypothesis that has been suggested numerous times, beginning with Becker (1974), is that people have a taste for giving perhaps they receive status or acclaim, or they simply experience a 'warm glow' from having 'done their bit.'"

So to the worry that the different usages occurred concurrently, it seems the concept of signaling virtue within academia precedes the 2009 usage in social media, though it appears to have done so in a relatively recent manner to when the social media usage began (under a decade). ---Wowaconia (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Pejorative Usage may be OLDER than more academic usage

While I could not find the use of virtue signalling within Economic theory earlier than the early 2000s, there is a usage by New Zealand literary critic from 1989.:

Answering to the Language – Essays on Modern Writers C.K. Stead Auckland University Press; 1989

At Home with the Poets The Penguin Book of New Zealand Verse, edited by Ian Wedde and Harvey McQueen, with an Introduction by Ian Wedde (Penguin, 1985) (First published in Landfall, September 1985)

Google Books link: [[5]]

"So (to take just one example) when Wedde writes of 'the full context of a "new Zealand poetry" where male hegemony has achieved the dubious status of orthodoxy', I feel a huge yawn rise in me. This is not thinking. It is a contemporary semaphore; signaling Virtue. It doesn't derive from the facts of men and women writing in New Zealand now, or twenty-five years ago when Curnow edited the first Penguin, or forty-five years ago when the Weetbix Card series 'Great New Zealanders' included Katherine Mansfield as our greatest writer. It invokes a fashionable untruth about the wickedness/blindness/prejudice of past male editors, and assure readers that Wedde and McQueen are no more generous than Curnow was to women poets of the period Curnow anthologized, and presumably for the same good reason – that in those decades there were more men than women writing tolerable poems. Curnow anthologized Blanche Baughan, Ursula Bethell, Robin Hyde, Ruth France, Gloria Ralinson, and Rught Dallas; and if he missed out on Eileen Duggan that was because he and she couldn't agree on what poems of hers to include. I doubt of course that Curnow would be as generous to contemporary women's poetry as Wedde/McQueen have been; but neither would he be as generous to the men. Unlike our present editors, Curnow was never embarrassed by the notion of excellence, or by the fact that talent is undemocratically distributed.
Since it's as well sometimes to spell things out laboriously, let me say that I don't believe that during my lifetime any male editor in New Zealand, either of a literary periodical or an anthology, has ever discriminated against a women writer on the basis of gender. When a woman, Fleur Adcock, recently edited the Oxford Contemporary New Zealand Poetry she selected seventeen male poets and four female. That is not all the selection I would have made; but it was hers, and at least the women chosen must be confident they are there because an editor thought they deserved to be. What a male editor does when he solemnly signals that he is being virtuous in his treatment and selection of women is to deprive the women of that confidence. The same is true of the Maori poets selected for this anthology. It's an odd irony that an ostentatiously 'liberal' editor leaves only the Pakeha males sure of having been selected on their merit and not in order to demonstrate the editor's."

This early usage that seems more akin to a pejorative usage seems to indicate that the current timeline on our Wikipedia page here should be scrapped - as this seemingly pejorative usage precedes social media, online forums, and even public access to the Internet. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Kudos to you for finding this obscure mention.
There are two problems with dividing this into "Academic" and "pejorative" categories:
  • We lack sources about the origin of the phrase itself
  • The precise phrase is not the general phrase, which is not the concept.
The first is obvious, but the second is worth discussing a bit more. Is this article about the phrase "virtue signalling" and nothing else? If so, the above is not usable because it's formed and used different. The Boston Globe source cites Geoffrey Nunberg in emphasizing that it's a gerund, so these distinctions do matter even if they feel restrictive or pedantic. So is this about the concept? That's a big can of worms. Why limit it to "virtue" and "signalling"? Why not "broadcasting" and "morality" or any of a dozen other similar words? Since those could just as easily be used to convey the same underlying concept, the scope of this article would no longer become clear. Again, the Globe source supports that the phrase semantically overlaps with a number of other terms, so we need to be very clear what this article is actually about. If that's decided, than we can figure out how to use this example. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable pejorative uses

Without secondary sources, calling these examples of pejorative usage notable is subjective. Neither Ann Coulter nor VDARE are reliable for statements of fact, nor are they reputable as expert opinions on any related topic. That they have used these terms is not disputed, but this doesn't automatically rise to the level of notability. If this is intended to demonstrate that the term is popular among the far-right, this should be done directly through reliable sources, not indirectly though editor-selected example. If these are included for some other reason, that reason should be explained and supported. If these were chosen because they have been discussed by reliable sources, those sources absolutely should be included here, rather than relying solely on primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully agree. I've removed the section. --Netoholic @ 19:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quote from Sam Bowman

I think we should discuss the quote from Sam Bowman that was removed by Grayfell with the comment "Needs to be contextualized by reliable sources".

For completeness, I should mention that the quote had already been removed once by Grayfell, with the comment "Sam Bowman is barely notable, why is his blogged opinion being given such a lengthy block-quote?" I brought it back yesterday with the comment "Bring back quote from Sam Bowman. It's used because it is a good explanation - nothing to do with Bowman's notability."

Let me expand on my reasoning. Blogs are not normally considered reliable sources, except, where necessary, as sources of the opinion of the author. I argue that, although this is called a "blog", it is not like most blogs. It is the official "blog" of the Adam Smith Institute, a 40-year-old think tank that advocates for the free market. These are not the throw away thoughts of someone who only just warrants a Wikipedia article, this is a well thought-out and edited piece by the executive director of an organisation that thinks a lot about economics - a field where the concept of signalling has a proper meaning.

As far as I can tell, Sam Bowman's article is the only article written about the other meaning of "virtue signalling", by someone who understands signalling. This Wikipedia article attempts to cover both meanings. I think that is a good thing as the meanings are related, it helps understanding, and arguably, neither meaning on its own would be notable. If we are going to have the article covering both meanings, it helps if we have a source written about one meaning by someone who understands the other meaning.

I'm not sure what Grayfell means by "Needs to be contextualized by reliable sources". Perhaps that the use of this quote gives WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of its author. I have argued that the opinion is more weighty than we might think for a typical blog and particularly relevant to the subject of the article.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I felt this was a random blog, I would've removed it completely. I don't want to overstate this, but I have multiple minor problems with the quote.
It's taken from a much longer blog post, making this quote a subjective choice for summarizing a complex opinion. The article itself is well-written and raises some interesting points, but that's not really the only criteria we should be using. I have no specific problem with the claims being made by the quote, but I absolutely do not think that this one slice of Bowman's relatively lengthy opinion should be elevated to this level of prominence. At least, not without a secondary source establishing this as significant. It is arguably an WP:SPS, and definitely an opinion piece, and should be weighed accordingly. Saying that this is "well thought-out" is entirely subjective, even if I happen to agree. Lots of experts and other people think about economics. Necessarily, most of these thoughts are incorrect, or at least irrelevant. If I were going to pick a specific quote from that article that I though should be highlighted as the most informative, it would not be that one. Looking at it closer, I see another problem, also. I don't really think that was Bowman's main point in this essay.
I would say that his point is that Bartholomew's use of the term is directly opposite to its use in signaling theory. This is only tangentially related to the point made by the quote. So rather than attempt to use our own mildly conflicting opinions about which aspect of this one essay is most important and informative, we should rely on reliable sources to do the contextualization for us. This is what I meant context.
I hope that explains my edit. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I disagree with all your multiple minor problems.
"It's taken from a much longer blog post, making this quote a subjective choice for summarizing a complex opinion" - The whole of Wikipedia is a summary of what other sources say. As Wikipedia:Quotations says "quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." If you think there is a better quote, please quote it. If you think there are key points missed from the quote, you could add them outside of the quote. You say "I would say that his point is that Bartholomew's use of the term is directly opposite to its use in signaling theory." I think this is implicit in "For something to actually be virtue signalling, rather than just showing off, it would need some sort of sacrifice", but I would be OK if someone changed the text before the quote to say "In a blog post for the Adam Smith Institute, Sam Bowman argues that the meaning of the term popularised by James Bartholomew is "exactly the opposite" of the concept of signalling, and its use encourages lazy thinking."
"It is arguably an WP:SPS, and definitely an opinion piece, and should be weighed accordingly." I agree that it is an opinion and it is stated as an opinion. This is the only published opinion on the topic by anyone who understands the concept of virtue signalling. Therefore, "weighed accordingly" definitely means giving more than one sentence. Bowman's opinion on this should hold much more weight than the opinion pieces in the Guardian or New Statesman - not because there is anything wrong with those publications, but because of the relative authority of the authors on the subject of this article.
"Lots of experts and other people think about economics. Necessarily, most of these thoughts are incorrect, or at least irrelevant." Yes. Lots of people say things that are irrelevant to the subject of this article. One has said something that is relevant to the subject of this article. We should give it due weight. I don't think we should just assume an expert's opinion is incorrect. If it is countered by a larger number of experts, we should weight the opinions accordingly, but this opinion hasn't been countered by anyone with any knowledge on the subject.
Yaris678 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that this quote is a good summary of the larger point. It's highlighting and emphasizing one aspect while ignoring or downplaying the rest. That would be fine if this were presented as being specifically about this aspect, but it isn't, it's presented as a general response. The briefer summary is sufficient for this more general purpose, but of course it could be adjusted. If you want to discuss how to adjust it, I'm open to that. Restoring the quote isn't a compromise, it's a subjective choice because it's ignoring all the other things he said.
Are you claiming this is "the only published opinion" by an expert in signaling? This is inviting a lot of problems. The existence of this opinion means nothing at all about any other opinions that might be out there. If this opinion is significant, it should be supported by better sources because not every opinion, even an expert opinion, needs to be emphasized by a multi-sentence direct quote.
This opinion hasn't been countered as far as we know, but we have no way of knowing if this is because it's correct, or because it's not worth rebuttal, or just because nobody noticed it. This is why relatively obscure blog posts from relatively obscure experts need to be weighed very carefully. We should be very cautious of promoting (for lack of a better word) any one perspective as being worth agreement/disagreement. We're not qualified to make that call. There is no way to know whether or not this is vitally significant based on this one source. That's why emphasizing it is potentially misleading.
I don't have a problem including his perspective in some form, I just have a problem highlighting this quote as is, because it's implying that this is an example of the academic consensus. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, yes, this is the only published opinion on the non-academic meaning of "virtue signalling" by anyone who knows anything about signalling. Do you know of any others?
Yaris678 (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell: Can I take it that you also don't know of any other published opinion on the non-academic meaning of "virtue signalling" by anyone who knows anything about signalling? This being the case, why are you concerned that we might be giving undue prominence to Bowman's opinion? Undue relative to what? Yaris678 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Undue in proportion to coverage of the topic, which is the baseline we use for due weight. By presenting his opinion in detail, we are essentially endorsing his opinion, and also saying that it's significant to the topic as a whole. The lone primary source doesn't support that, and primary sources should be avoided for this kind of thing anyway. If this truly is the only non-academic etc., that's an indication that this is not a vitally important perspective. Deep-diving into the blog-mines to dig-up whatever commentary we can find isn't proportional coverage. If this is important, it should either be summarized by reliable sources, or it should, at a bare minimum, be corroborated by other expert primary sources, although that's far from ideal.
You have also not addressed my concerns that this quote is a poor choice to summarize the larger essay, making it a form of cherry-picking. Again, the way to resolve this would be to use a summary provided by a reliable independent source. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
As I've said before, if you think the quote misses something, you can always expand on our summary of the piece in the article. Obviously, you don't want to do that, because you think that even including the quote is giving undue prominence to that one source. Hence, the prominence of that source is the key issue, hence my focus on that.
This article covers both the academic and the non-academic meaning of the term "virtue signalling". The piece by Bowman is the only source that gets close to covering both topics in the same location. Hence it is important to our article. Yes, it is an opinion piece, but to characterise it "deep-diving the blog-mines" is highly misleading - it is written by the Executive Director of the Adam Smith Institute, a 40-year-old economics think tank.
Yaris678 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not up to you or me bestow importance on this source. The only reliable person saying this perspective is important is, arguably, the person advancing it. A couple of sentences would be acceptable, but selectively repeating any one particular quote implies that a source is more important/straightforward than it inherently is. If this is the only source that covers both topics, this is a clear indication that this one perspective is not a significant aspect of the academic mainstream.
I also have some issues with the idea that these two usages should overlap on Wikipedia. As I said above, the term is not necessarily the same as the concept here, and the line has become even more fuzzy with sources like this. The value in slicing a whole term like "virtue+signalling" into its component words and then dissection one of those words as though it were in a different context... Well, it's abstract at best, and pedantic at worst, but it's definitely introducing subjectivity. I say pedantic, but I think it's a clever bit of writing. I see it as a rhetorical device to segue into advice on critical thinking more than a comment on the term itself. He knows full well that the people who use "virtue signalling" are not generally using "signalling" in the literal academic sense, but he is treating it this way to show how the underlying approach is flawed. Is my interpretation if this subjective? Of course, but any interpretation of this is going to be, right? That's why a secondary source should do the interpretation for us, and that's also why any editor-selected quote is going to risk cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Why I added a "Notability" tag

This term "virtue signalling" seems to exist almost entirely within the rightwing blogosphere, and it is used to try to dismiss anyone on the left who makes disparaging remarks about rightwingers. (I did see that Ann Coulter used it once to attack her fellow conservatives, but insofar as one can derive any meaning from anything she says, she seemed to be attacking some ill-defined set of conservatives for not being conservative enough.)

"Virtue signalling" is a pejorative phrase which doesn't seem to mean anything specific, and (as the examples in the wikipedia article clearly demonstrate) it has no currency outside one small subculture. That is why I thought it wasn't notable enough to have its own wikipedia article.

Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Timothy,
There is definitely an issue with how the term is used, but I don't think deleting the article is necessarily the best response.
As the article makes clear, the term originated in an obscure academic field, and has since been adopted by a small number of loud-mouthed people for their own purposes.
If the term was only used in an obscure academic field, or only used by a small number of loud-mouthed people for their own purposes, it might not be worth an article. The fact that is is both makes it interesting.
On the face of it, the topic is notable since there are a large number of independent sources discussing the term. However, we should be careful not present the views of the small number of loud-mouthed people as facts.
In my view, it is disappointing that no sources point out that these loud-mouthed people are highly prone to virtue signalling themselves. The only difference being that the virtues they wish to signal are different.
I agree that the vast majority of non-academic sources are all either reflecting the same narrow POV, or else commenting on the terms use by people with that narrow POV and unaware of the true, academic meaning of the term. I think that makes it hard to make an NPOV article, but I think it is worth trying.
Yaris678 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You said, "This term "virtue signalling" seems to exist almost entirely within the rightwing blogosphere." Well, that may be because the _action_ of "virtue signalling" seems to exist almost entirely within the leftwing blogosphere. The left is trying to change virtually everything about morals and ethics, and they insist that people keep up with all those changes. What about all those pronouns! It's not enough that people remember one specific set of pronouns: The left wants each person to choose his own set of pronouns, and people are expected to recite them, correctly, whenever they encounter a given person. This is impossible, let alone impractical. Merely using those various sets of pronouns amounts to "virtue signalling". 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6D07:FE08:BC6F:C6ED (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Your blatantly ideological rant is, aside from being completely factually incorrect, irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- Jibal (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Potential new source

This source, looks like it covers the topic well. It is described as a blog, but it is from the respectable Adam Smith Institute, so I think we can call it reliable. Yaris678 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's relevant, but it's also an opinion piece. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is on opinion pieces as references, but I consider them to be less useful as a reliable reference than an article written from a neutral point of view (like, say, a journalistic piece of reporting, or an academic paper). To be fair, though, this is a problem with several of the sources of this article and they are surely better than having virtually no references at all. Jolta (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
It may be "respectable", but it's not reliable ... it's an ideological polemics factory. And that you think that strictly opinion piece "covers the topic well" does not speak well for your judgment. -- Jibal (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we cut down the "Wider use" section?

OK. I have added in the above source, which I think makes clear some of the issues with the common use of the term. Perhaps the biggest issue with the article now is the size of the "Wider use" section. Given that this wider use is mostly silly, maybe we just need a few examples.

I think we need to get across that it was used before Bartholemew but he popularised it, and give an idea of the ways it has been used. We don't need it to be nearly as big as it is.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A bit more history on the "Wider use" section:
Because we are talking about a fairly recent usage of the term (as opposed the the original academic usage) I don't think we are going to find a reliable secondary source that summarises the different strands on opinion on this. This is why we are reduced to citing authors for their own opinion. Doing this is OK up to a point - see WP:RSOPINION. We need to be careful not to just be a massive collection of everything everyone had said about the term... but I am not sure what the best way is to decide what to include and what not to include. I would be very interested to hear what other editors think.
One option would be to say that the non-academic use of the term is WP:NEO and we shouldn't have an article on it at all. I think that is too extreme, given that the modern usage has had quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources.
I think part of the reason it is tricky is that James Bartholomew popularised the term, and so obviously deserves a mention... but we can't just leave it to what he said. For a start, he has claimed to have invented the term, which is incorrect. Furthermore, many people have written about issues with the way the term has been used by him... so which ones do we include? Others have embraced the term, so how do we show this, without it appearing that Wikipedia itself had embraced the term?
Opinions please!
Yaris678 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Information laying out the historical development of the term being brought into popular usage should not be deleted as its on-topic, notable and sourced.

If the length is an issue than the article can be split into two pages one for its use within signalling theory and the other for its popular usage. Most readers will encounter the phrase in popular usage and its use in signalling theory informs upon the popular meaning, rather than vice versa. I do not think there is a need to split the article at this time.

"Mostly silly" is a subjective claim, if there is some violation of Wikipedia standards please lay that out.

The article lays out how the term went from in-group/scholastic to wide/popular and had its meaning altered as that occurred, which I would argue is valuable for the reader.

Perhaps the issue is the sub-header "Wider use" it could be changed to "Popular use". --Wowaconia (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think "Popular use" is a better name for the section than "Wider use", but I am happy to hear other opinions on that.
I used the phrase "mostly silly" to describe the way the term was used by various people, not the way the article is written. I don't claim any violation of any Wikipedia standards and it wasn't me that reduced or removed sections of the text.
Also, I am not saying that the page is currently "just be a massive collection of everything everyone had said about the term". Some things have been included and some excluded, as you would expect. However, different people will have different ideas about what should and shouldn't be included. I think the most important thing is to come up with some standards for inclusion. This will hopefully reduce the arguments about individual cases. For example, I think the following things count in favour of a source being used:
  • The source using the term "virtue signalling" earlier than most other sources (e.g. LessWrong)
  • The source discussing the meaning of the term, rather than just using it.
  • The person giving an opinion is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.
If a notable person uses the term after James Bartholemew, but doesn't actually discuss the meaning of the term, then I think they deserve at most very brief mention as in "X used the term when discussing Y.[Source]"
I realise the above is just my opinion. I would like to know what other people think. Do people agree it would be good to have some standards for inclusion? What do people think of the specific standards I have set out above?
Yaris678 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I would put forward that the "Wider Use" segment would ideally have a sub-segment focused on the history of how the term's usage and definition got changed and taken into the popular media, and then another sub-segment of the most notable uses of the term (with notability being defined by news coverage or by the person using the term). As far as I can determine the history part seems complete as is. --Wowaconia (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How is the Wider Use section not self-evidently too long and repetitive? Neither the accuracy nor the POV are cause for concern, but the section is a slog when it should be a brisk stroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.41.103 (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed most of this content. For simplicity, I will start a new section on this below. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Pejorative

The term "pejorative" itself can be used only by people who share the same ethic as the "signal-virtuer" and the opposite ethic as the critic or just reviewer. Thats the nature of morality. So the term "pejorative" is POV and pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.38.13 (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Jibal responded to a simular comment under a thread with the same name, above, on the 4th of August. Yaris678 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I did respond on 4 August 2018 to another comment from a different IP address that also made the bizarre claim that merely using the term "pejorative" is itself pejorative, but I'm not clear on what is added by pointing that out here. However, now that you have drawn my attention to this, I have expanded my comment above. -- Jibal (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

See also

Is 'Political Correctness' closely enough related to Virtue Signalling to warrant inclusion on the list of See Also link? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.111.134 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No. -- Jibal (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Note that "signalling" appears to be the UK English spelling; "signaling" is US English.[1] 104.193.103.84 (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I went with the easy solution is simply made the quote punctuation proper according to the rules of British English.Jravid (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC) On this note, the article seems to be written half in UK English and half in North American (e.g. "signalling," but the use of double quotes as opposed to single, for some reason). This needs to be streamlined- which version do we propose to go with? UK or NA? Jravid (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ ["https://www.englishforums.com/English/SignalingOrSignalling/krnjb/post.htm" ""Signaling or Signalling""]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

UPDATE 2019-06-16: I propose to replace the UK English spelling (signalling) with the globally more common spelling "signaling". This would also entail changing the page title from "virtue signalling" to "virtue signaling". What do you guys think?

Rethink needed?

I have to agree fully with Zed's points above, I've started a new section as I want to be clear I think serious work needs to be done here as this whole entry seems quite confused, misleading and is in need of a serious rethink.

From reading the talk I appreciate that a lot of discussion and compromise has gone into getting it to this stage, but I think an overhaul is needed to bring it up to standard. Reading this entry one would think that some well-established academic concept from the field of evolutionary biology has been taken into the mainstream and applied to everyday discourse. It's only when one cares to research further that this appears not to be the case at all.

A lot of the linked content is useful, but it's confusingly organised and overall, like Zed, I think the heavy-emphasis on its place in signalling theory is highly misleading.

The introduction and opening section which link to relatively esoteric corners of academia that have put together the words 'virtue' and 'signalling' (or their synonyms) really do not bring anything to explaining the expression as used in popular culture. This history should be noted, but I don't really see evidence that the popular usage of the term has any direct link to its academic usage, and so this should, at most, be an afterthought. The current emphasis on this (plausibly coincidental) use of the expression gives a sheen of academic respectability to an expression and/or concept that one is very hard pressed to see discussed in academia. In fact, there appears to be no real academic discussion on the notion of 'virtue signalling' as presently popularly conceived. The main academic sources cited in the current version, as noted by a previous commentor, come from Bulbulia and colleagues (who although they address a topic from signalling theory, are primarily theologians) and they are simply throwaway mentions, no explanations of virtue signalling are provided, nor any citations of previous usages, and the referent falls within their overall argument for what they call 'charismatic signalling'. What they appear to be discussing, however, appears conceptually quite different to the popular usage. Also the Gugerty paper mentioned in the talk discussion seems again to be significantly conceptually different. My sense is that this entry as it stands mistakenly conflates obscure previous concepts with a newer well-known current notion. When discussing concepts it is a significant error to think that because someone has used the same expression they refer to the same concept. There is clearly a very different set of ideas at play in recent uses of 'virtue signalling' when compared to the few examples of it from academia in the past so I don't see why Wikipedia should make it appear that this is a continuous flow.

So the heart of the problem with the article is covered by the second problem noted in Grayfell's excellent post in the 'Pejorative Usage may be OLDER than more academic usage' section of talk. What is this article about? An expression or a concept? It doesn't seem to be clear and the result is it crosses dangerously into doing both. As it stands it gives a discussion of a concept via an etymological history and the result is it gives the impression of an academically established concept being given extended use, but crucially without any actual evidence to suggest this has what has happened. What's happened is the same expression has been used. That 'virtue signalling' is polysemous should be made explicit and the academic history moved to the bottom.

We should also employ common sense here, nobody is coming to this page on the back of reading Bulbulia or Gugerty. 'Virtue signalling' as commonly used is a pejorative, it is a dialectical device and so should be given treatment as such.

Also, there is no mention of the frequently pointed out circularity of calling someone virtue signalling - specifically that it is itself an act of virtue signalling.

I am happy to work on a rehaul of the page at some point in the near future to reflect the spirit of what I've said above. If anyone has objections in principle I'd rather see them now before going to the trouble of carrying out the edit and someone just pulling the lot. For now I'm just going to change the intro which is misleading and unbalanced.

Current Intro:

Virtue signalling, spelled virtue signaling in the United States, is the conspicuous expression of moral values.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue. The tactic can be used by a wide range of different people to accomplish different goals, ranging from social justice activism within certain political groups to piety among religious institutions[2].

Four major problems: 1. The cited definition from OD seems suitably broad and should be used as the basis for this, no point citing it and then defining it quite differently as before. (Otherwise, it seems to be merely signalling one's own scholarliness. ;) ) 2. The aforementioned problem with confusing concepts means sentence two has no place in the intro. 3. Stating that "conspicuous expression of moral values" is a "tactic" (sentence 3), assumes the point of view of the person claiming another to be virtue signalling. The intro is supposed to be factual and neutral. 4. Again we see the conflating of two concepts "used by a wide range of different people to accomplish different goals, ranging from social justice activism within certain political groups to piety among religious institutions" the first "goal" (see next point) of social justice activism, clearly relates to the popular usage, but the second clearly relates to the Bulbulia paper. Yet there is no reason to believe these concepts align.

Amendment:

Virtue signalling, spelled virtue signaling in the United States, is the public expression of opinions that show one's own good character or moral correctness. It is popularly used as a pejorative, though there have been a few examples of usage of the expression non-pejoratively in academia.


Further note: I just also changed the heading of 'In Signalling Theory' to 'in academia' as that is factually incorrect. Also removed the first para pf that section explaining signal theory as that is totally irrelevant. I also emphasised there is no credible link between common usage and academic. I also noticed another howler as editing, as good a source for early usage as the LessWrong blog is, it most certainly doesn't take the academic usage and apply it to popular discourse as previously claimed. I am utterly perplexed how anyone could think it does. It is a completely unjustifiable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Further note 2: There is a correlate concept to that picked out by the popular usage of 'Virtue Signalling' in Tosi and Warmke's https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/papa.12075 ( A precis can be found in https://aeon.co/ideas/moral-grandstanding-theres-a-lot-of-it-about-all-of-it-bad), what they call it is 'moral grandstanding'. This might be worth including in the academic usage section?

Furhter note 3: I am becoming weary and frustrated that the minor edits I have made that put this in line with Wikipedia's pillars see "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and "Wikipedia has no "opinion" of its own; it just accurately summarizes reliable sources.". Replies to editors who are undoing my work without engaging in the topic itself can be found here and also here. I intend no edit war whatsoever, I feel I have given detailed reasons for my changes which are in line with the changes proposed above by Zed on 22 October. If these changes are unacceptable, then surely more reasons than 'removed sources' are needed. A misrepresented source is not a "source" anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative

Re the previous edit and restore, I do think we need to say something making clear that this term is used (at least outside any academic context) as a pejorative. It seems to be used in a context in which the writer seeks to re-label the motivations of others. Personally, it appears to me to be an alt-right sneer that seeks to dismiss what others might regard to be compassion, and while I don't think my opinions are a valid basis for anything, its certainly clear, at face value, that this is a label imposed by one party on another party, somewhere on the axis of bad faith and hypocrisy. It's not, as far as I can see, something people say about themselves. 'I'm going to virtue signal about the poor this afternoon', etc. Certainly, this is not an objective term. Bluehotel (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole covers this issue well. e.g. Paragraph 2 "Since 2015, the term has been most conspicuously used by commentators to criticize what they regard as the platitudinous and empty or superficial..." and Paragraph 5 "Zoe Williams has described the phrase as the "sequel insult to champagne socialist"".
The issue is what we should say in the first sentence/paragraph.
I'm not massively impressed with any recent version of the first sentence/paragraph. Maybe we should just remove it and start with "The term "virtue signalling" was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue..."
I know we normally like to start with a declarative "X is blah" statement, rather than "The term X is blah". But I think that is hard for this term.
Yaris678 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the first paragraph, as described above. There was a bit of editing back and forth about the content of it, but it isn't improving. On reflection, I think it is better to start with the least fluffy use of the term - which is in the context of signalling theory. Everything after that, in the current content, explains the other uses better than the old first paragraph. Yaris678 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Yaris678: Your removals violate the general notability guidelines in that you've removed the usage of the phrase that has the most significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). This article would not exist on its own if it only detailed the "piety" meaning. The "pejorative" meaning is why this article exists. You also removed examples which are cited and help readers to understand when this phrase is used. As such, I'm reverting. -- Netoholic @ 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article is now right. I don't think editors should seek to create entities by reference to a few usages in opinion pieces. By all means describe how a term is used, but to say that virtue signalling IS what is said, IMO amounts to an original research synthesis. Bluehotel (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bluehotel, you keep putting the cart before the horse. Nobody classifies what they themselves are doing as "virtue signalling" The term is only ever used as a pejorative term by another party in response to whatever the first party has said or done. Whether or not what is being said or done has merit or is worthy of dismissal is subjective, but the only promotion of a viewpoint in the context of this article is the person making the statement "x is virtue signalling". Mighty Antar (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I liken it to the term racism - very often, people that are racist do not classify themselves as such. Calling someone a 'racist' is done, as you say "by another party in response to whatever the first party has said or done". That does not make it any less valid a topic. -- Netoholic @ 03:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The flaw in your argument is that there is no uncertainty as to whether racism exists, either in terms of RS or human behavior. Virtue signalling is an expression which a handful of individuals have deployed in order to belittle, stigmatize and hence discourage behaviors that might otherwise be characterized as social concern, compassion or simply kindness. There is no objective evidence that such a phenomenon even exists, and I don't believe Wikipedia has any duty to try to create one. Hence saying what virtue signalling IS - the way it is here - strips it of its usage and asserts it as an entity. In my view. Bluehotel (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
In my example of a person who doesn't consider themselves to be racist, yet is called a racist by someone else - that situation is no longer objective. We have several articles about subjective topics on wikipedia, yet these topics themselves objectively exist and can be defined. We, of course, should not be swaying this article into making a firm judgment about which behaviors are true virtue signalling, but we can give generalized examples which are cited. We can cite specific notable accusations of virtue signalling (if such exist). This is because it is objective knowledge that the claims have been made, but not fact that the claims are true. Likewise, on the general topic, it is objective that the phrase is being used, but not objective that its being used appropriate in any/all circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 09:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, it looks like there is no consensus for the definition in this version of the article. Indeed, three of for four editors seem happy to remove the first paragraph and subsequent bullet points, giving this version. Yaris678 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

How about improve, not remove? Imagine someone out there that hears this phrase being bandied about. They google, and come here. Doesn't the expanded version with bullet points convey the definition far better than the neutered version, which would confuse the average reader since it defines it in the context of piety rather than the conventional meaning? -- Netoholic @ 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The expanded version will tell them how the term is used by some people, but it will give the false impression that this is the definition of the term.
There has been plenty of opportunity to improve it, but if anything it has got worse. If you can improve it, please do. I can't see a way to make this way of starting the article satisfactory. Where content is disputed the onus is on those who want to include it.
Yaris678 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
For such a short, new article it already has plenty of citations which satisfy this requirement. The article covers several definitions of the phrase. I don't see how your concern is valid. Even those that oppose the inclusion of the "pejorative" meaning are acknowledging that very meaning in the way they are stating their opposition here. Added: If you think the existing citations are inadequate, then I suggest you nominate this article for deletion. Without the pejorative meaning, this article would not and should not exist. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is questioning the existing references. Indeed, three of three of the four are used in the article that has the contentious definition removed. No one is questioning whether it is used as a pejorative and that this should be mentioned in the article. The question is whether this should be used in the definition of the term. If the pejorative meaning was the only meaning of the term, we could start the article with something like "Virtue signalling is an insult, frequently use to characterise an opponents behaviour as primarily existing to enhance their standing within a social group." Fortunately, the term existed before it was co-opted as an insult, so we can give it's proper definition first.
Also, have you read WP:ONUS?
Yaris678 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I think a historical description of its usage would be fine. I think killing the first paragraph probably did that, but there may be other ways.Bluehotel (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Common meanings are given preference in the lead. Obscure/historical meanings are typically given later in the article. That's the structure we already have. I'll also point out that current first line is intentionally vague and general enough to cover both the pejorative and piety meanings. Its an inclusive compromise. -- Netoholic @ 19:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It really isn't an inclusive compromise. It takes something contentious and states it as fact. Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how the definition of the phrase is contentious. Certainly applying the term to specific persons or actions may be, but the term has a meaning. I say again - if you insist on removing this meaning, then please instead nominate this article for deletion because without the definition, then this article should not exist. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The article without the contentious definition still says what the meaning of the word is, just without swallowing a world view along the way. I don't see what any of this has to do with AfD... Other than, perhaps, without the academic meaning of the phrase, it would be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Adding a reference to the The Sun makes it look more contentious, not less. Yaris678 (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The Sun article is a secondary source for the primary source Oxford Dictionary which has seen fit to define this phrase as “the action or practice of publicly expressing opinion or sentiments intended to demonstrate one’s good character or the moral correctness of one’s position on a particular issue.” Your edits to the lead have removed this basic meaning and devalued this article. Added:Your current form essentially defines the phrase with itself - "the term virtue signalling was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue" - which is low-quality work. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Netoholic. Thank you for building on my version. I think the article is getting pretty good now. Yaris678 (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It is rarely used as a pejorative in the cases you accuse of being pejorative. Labeling it that way is itself pejorative! People using it in this sense usually mean it literally; they mean that they believe that the subject was engaging in the type of signalling described by the term. If that is good or bad is irrelevant; and if it is pejorative or not depends on if it is true. If a person makes a non-literal statement because it makes them look good, and a listener asks them if it is literally true or if they were virtue signalling, they might agree that they were signalling. Sending a signal is a neutral act, value judgements rely on content. Likewise, for it to be pejorative, you have to presume that no signalling was intended. How can you know, in the general case, that no signalling was intended in the specific case? Therefore, it is clear that describing it in the general case as being pejorative is both false, and itself a pejorative attack.76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
This is completely unsubstantiated BS. You might as well claim that "Hey, you're fat!" isn't pejorative if said to someone who is obese. Whether a term is pejorative depends solely on the text, never on its factuality. Outside of scholarly work, "virtue signaling" is almost entirely used as an insult directed by sociopaths at people displaying sympathy or empathy. The claim that someone is "virtue signaling" is judgment, not a statement of fact, because motivation cannot be observed, it can only be inferred. And the claim that labeling "virtue signaling" as pejorative is "itself a pejorative attack" is an absurd category error ... the only subject is the phrase itself, and a phrase is not the sort of thing that can be the subject of "a pejorative attack". -- Jibal (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph, it could be pointed out that a contradiction only exists if both parties are actually non-virtuous. For one to insist that there is a contradiction is just to assume that truth is relative and no one can actually be in a valid, virtuous position. And for a 3rd person to maintain that there is a contradiction is, hence, only contradicting his own position if he holds that truth is relative leading to this contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.182.217.130 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The point being referred to there doesn't rely on whether one actually is virtuous or not, but rather that the very act of claiming that another person is acting in a way intended to show their own virtuousness, is, in fact, acting in a way that shows one's own virtuousness (the virtue on display being that one can see through to the true motivations of the accused, or that one is healthily cynical etc...). I think 'contradiction' in the opening paragraph isn't quite the right word though so I'll amend that. Pjconnolly123 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to add a little more to my point above. Having edited it to say 'paradoxical nature' as opposed to 'contradiction', I realise there is actually a contradiction that needs resolving too, but again it probably doesn't require taking a position on truth. The contradiction is at the level of virtue signalling being 'a bad thing'. Calling out virtue signalling is taken to be calling out a bad thing. But if it is the case that in calling out virtue signalling we are actually performing the act of virtue signalling, then the contradiction is at the level of whether virtue signalling is intrinsically a bad thing. Presumably if X accuses Y of virtue signalling, then X thinks virtue signalling is bad. But if calling out virtue signalling is another form of virtue signalling, then X is doing something bad too. Presuming X doesn't think they are doing something bad they need to either give reasons as to why what they are doing is not virtue signalling, and I'm not sure how this case can be made - it looks to be systematically the same process. Failing that they need to concede that all virtue signalling isn't bad, in which case the phrase becomes no more useful or potent than someone saying to another person 'well, you're just speaking English'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 edit war

There appears to be two wholesale versions that we are seeing getting repeatedly reverted to. It is becoming petty and tiresome as the reasons being given are not in the form of an engaged attempt at consensus. Of the two wholesale versions we have this one:

Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing social standing. The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious.[1] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action.[2][3]

Which is preferred by Netoholic (reverted to 3 times in 4 days).

And various versions that go along the following lines:

Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing social standing. In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative by conservative commentators to criticize empty or superficial support of left-wing or liberal political views, and sometimes within groups to criticize members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action.[2][3] Such pejorative usage is arguably ironical, as demonization of virtue signaling may also be a form of virtue signaling.[4] This paradoxical feature, in combination with the vague definition of the term has led to suggestions the term is meaningless in everyday political discussion.[5] In academia the term has been used non-pejoratively.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Religious was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Shariatmadari, David (January 20, 2016). "Virtue-signalling – the putdown that has passed its sell-by date". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-04-11.
  3. ^ a b Peters, Mark (December 25, 2015). "Virtue signaling and other inane platitudes". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2016-04-11.
  4. ^ Coaston, Jane (2017-08-08). "'Virtue Signaling' Isn't the Problem. Not Believing One Another Is". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-01-17.
  5. ^ Shariatmadari, David (2016-01-20). "'Virtue-signalling' – the putdown that has passed its sell-by date | David Shariatmadari". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-01-17.

Which various users have contributed to.

Unless we're just going to play a game of who gets bored first, we need to work on some consensus here. As Netoholic has been consistent in reverting to a very particular version, I have posted this to their talk page:

Hi Netoholic.

I hope you are well.

It is clear no consensus is being reached on the Virtue Signalling page, but it's starting to feel like you are taking an authoritarian approach to editing this page without entering into any discussion on Talk, nor responding to any of my points in edit summary. I know you have engaged in the talk on this page previously, but I don't think that gives you authority to keep reverting to an old version without being constructive or attempting to find consensus.

Can you please explain why you think "The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious." should be included "for historical and complete coverage"? There are two major problems with this. As I have repeatedly said in edit summary and Talk this is at best misleading, at worst just plain wrong. I will repeat my reasoning; signalling theory is a field within evolutionary biology. A theologian is not an evolutionary biologist. So a theologian using the expression 'virtue signalling' does not mean that 'virtue signalling' was first used in signalling theory. At best you can say it comes from the field of theology (or more precisely is used by one particular theologian - a point already alluded to in the 'Academic' section anyway). The expression 'virtue signal', or any such derivative, has had no take-up in signalling theory outside of the two Bulbulia papers. But even changing it to say 'comes from theology' would be inaccurate, which leads to problem number two: there have been at least two examples of even earlier usage detailed in Talk. Now one could make a case that the co-author of one of the Bulbulia papers Russell Grey is an evolutionary biologist, but he is not someone who writes on signal theory, and is also third co-author, so ascribing that paper to his field rather than to the lead author's is very odd. So if your goal is "historical and complete coverage", then this version fails on that count. A major problem with this version you revert to is it makes it seem that the popular expression 'virtue signalling', has a well-defined theoretical basis from the field of virtue signalling. When this is plainly false. Bulbulia (theologian) and colleagues use but doesn't define the expression, and the expression is not found in any other paper beyond these two Bulbulia et al. sources. This shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. Bulbulia's use is certainly to be noted, but it's already noted in the following section.

I am also confused about your note that "VS is not about only moral values", yet the version you revert to changes from "Virtue signalling is the public expression of opinions that show one's own supposed good character or moral correctness." to "Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing social standing." So you seem to be narrowing the concept to very specifically being just a moral component. Also your insistence on citing Bulbulia as an originator (who is talking very precisely about moral effects), you again seem to be enforcing the notion that this is a about moral values.

I am aware that there are the seeds of an edit war here involving you, me and other editors. I am trying to be constructive and making minor amendments, and giving detailed reasons. Although I think the first line of your preferred version is still not quite right, and the line about signalling theory is just false. And although I do think there are other elements from the other wholesale version that keeps getting reverted to that could be in the intro, your version seems to be workable with some changes. Minus the line about signalling theory, and with a caveat making clear that there have been a few academic uses of the expression 'virtue signalling', though these have no known links to popular usage, then the version you revert to at least would have the virtue of being concise enough that it doesn't contravene NPOV.

I hope you either can agree with me on the changes, or at the very least enter into a discussion (particularly about the signalling theory issue) and persuade me and others of why this version is to be preferred.

For transparency I will copy this onto the talk page for VS, if you would like me to remove it, please let me know.

All the best.

I don't think it is unreasonable to make changes to the intro as a temporary measure to reflect my points in the above note to Netoholic. So I will do that now as it is misleading and inaccurate as it stands. Hopefully we can then work out between us how to stop this pettiness escalating. Pjconnolly123 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

TLDR (literally, because I am not going to read through another of this single-purpose account's long diatribes). The version which features inclusion of the "signalling theory" usage gained consensus two years ago (see #Pejorative). Pjconnolly123 has NOT established a consensus for removal of that, and has been reverted/counters by other editors also. I find it insulting and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to both complain about there being an "edit war" yet continue to revert to his preferred removal of cited content in the same breath. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems you are the only one reverting. Carl Fredrik talk 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The irony is not lost on me, considering you just did your own revert to a particularly biased revision which implies, incorrectly, that virtue signaling is somehow about left politics being persecuted, when in fact all political sides both are guilty of employing VS and also reviling VS. VS is often (per sources) something that is debated within one political side amongst themselves. The lead should not be making such a false claim, but should just neutrally describe the practice without regard to the left-vs-right implications. -- Netoholic @ 22:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Our sources state that it is predominantly used against left-wing politics. Why is it controversial to state that? Carl Fredrik talk 23:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Because for about 2 years, the lead has avoided NPOV problems by not stating such. Its a point which is far from proven, and most likely inaccurate, and definitely not accepted enough to warrant debating on it within the lead where points and counter-points with sources can't be effectively explored. The lead has been and should remain neutral in that respect, describing what the phenomenon is without picking sides. -- Netoholic @ 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Netoholic. I am sorry that you find any of my actions or words insulting, or that you think I am writing "diatribes". I have become a little frustrated at the lack of attempts at engagement, but I assure you there is nothing bitter, nor personal about what I have written. I understand that you have been involved with editing, and made some good contributions to this page in the past, and I am also aware that we are all liable to feeling offended when our work is scrutinised. To add to this, I was not complaining, I was seeking consensus. For what it is worth I personally prefer the version CFCF and other user have created - it is true to its sources at least and doesn't (in your own words) conflate usages. Though you are right that care over NPOV is needed so it's not perfect by any means. However, as you would know had you read my message to you, I reached out directly to you to try and build some consensus, having tried to edit in a consensual way previously. When you regularly reverted wholesale to a previous version, I made minor edits and provided sometimes (I admit) very long explanations, but also on three separate occasions short summaries of why claiming this expression was first used in virtue signalling is wrong. It is wrong temporally - not the first known usage, and also misleading categorically in the fact that this is not a term of art from the field of signalling theory. So this statement is either wrong read one way, or misleading read another way. Now feel free to dismiss me as simply an SPA, or that I'm writing diatribes or whatever other ad hominem you wish. But the fact of the matter is, whenever you have reverted, I have attempted to re-edit in a number of different ways to make the intro less contentious and given reasons relating to the changes. But from what I can see you still haven't justified why your version is preferable beyond saying consensus was reached. Now maybe it was, but my points weren't discussed then, and you haven't addressed them once as far as I can see. I must say that I'm a little taken aback by an experienced editor accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour ("Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation") in response to me attempting to build a consensus, and if you can point out where I wasn't calm, civil and cooperative then I will note that and attempt to change my behaviour in future. Best wishes, Pjconnolly123 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

February 1 2019 changes

The conspicuous conservation addition is very good. I prefer this intro to the old version, the wording of the second sentence is much more careful. However, I still don't see how it gets prominent billing as intro-worthy. The connection to signalling theory is still tenuous - my oft repeated and never-responded to question: how do we justify the work of a theologian being classified as "signal theory"? The wording "refers to" is an improvement, but it still looks totally misleading to me. I haven't heard a good reason given as to why this twice used expression that has had no take-up in signalling theory is still linking to signalling theory. Makes sense in the academic usage section, but not in an intro. I am all ears though. I've trimmed out the 'American spelling' bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think after surveying some of the academic work that the precise phrase "virtue signalling" has certainly adopted right alongside as the popularity of the more pejorative use rises. Works about signalling theory prior to the mid-2010s do discuss "virtue" (morals/ethics/etc) as one of many signals that exist in human society, and especially in respect to religion and piety, but they didn't use the precise phrase very often. That's why I changed the lead from "originated from" as that was the only misleading part. What a lot of sources agree on is that the precise phrase "virtue signalling" has essentially galvanized an idea which has existed for a very long time, and we're certainly seeing that exact phrase turn up a lot more. The academic and the pejorative are intertwined with each other, and as such both should be mentioned in the lead and over time we'll continue to improve exactly how we describe their relation. -- Netoholic @ 16:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm definitely happier with this version if its there with a view to improvement over time. I'd like to have a little think about making the Academic Usage and Pejorative use sections read a little better at some point soon as they seem a little disjointed. One thing I've been wondering about is whether to note is that there seems to be a correlate concept starting to be discussed in philosophical literature. For example in Tosi and Warmke's Moral Grandstanding ( A precis can be found in https://aeon.co/ideas/moral-grandstanding-theres-a-lot-of-it-about-all-of-it-bad). Their description is "Our basic contention is that one grandstands when one makes a contribution to public moral discourse that aims to convince others that one is “morally respectable.” By this we mean that grandstanding is a use of moral talk that attempts to get others to make certain desired judgments about oneself, namely, that one is worthy of respect or admiration because one has some particular moral quality—for example, an impressive commitment to justice, a highly tuned moral sensibility, or unparalleled powers of empathy. To grandstand is to turn one's contribution to public discourse into a vanity project." This seems to be precisely the same concept captured by the pejorative sense of VS. My only concern with adding it is they don't actually use the expression "virtue signalling", so you might be better positioned to advise; does this avoidance then put inclusion of it on the page as "own research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjconnolly123 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Academic Usage

Starting a new section, to address comments that are a little stale: apologies if this is inappropriate.

There are serious problems with all attempts to relate academic work to the contemporary usage of the term "virtue signalling". The one and only academic source actually cited in the article uses the term exactly once, in discussion of how it applies in costly signaling theory. From reading, its usage there definitely does not refer to "any" signalling of virtue, but only to those with a personal cost. I can substantiate this with a direct quote if need be.

More generally, the efforts I noted on the Talk page above to find prior academic usage indicate a subtle but vital distinction between any reference to "virtue signalling" in academic work and in its colloquial sense. The colloquial, perjorative sense is a compound noun. It also becomes a gerund of that compound noun: "he is virtue signalling", "you are virtue signalling". I can find no equivalent to this usage in academic works: where it appears, it is treated as a separate verb and noun: "virtue" can be "signalled" but there is no concept as such of a person who engages in "virtue signalling" in any academic literature, only in the signalling of virtue in certain cituations.

In terms of those situations, the academic usage of "signalling virtue" and the colloquial term "virtue signalling" also have diametrically opposed explanations for what they are describing. In the book "Religion, Economy and Cooperation", the "virtue signalling" term refers to the totality of signals of virtue that are individually costly, but which provide benefit in the form of mutual cooperation. Everything linked here discussing the colloquial usage suggests that the entire point of the term is that it costs the person engaging in it nothing, and only gives the appearance of real virtue.

The pejorative use of the compound noun "virtue signalling" to describe a cynical and meaningless action for the sake of virtue is not related to the occasional inclusion of "virtue" as one of the things that can be signalled, in signalling theory models. The two usages even actively contradict each other in key points. And I personally dislike the false air of academic legitimacy that derives to the colloquial usage by relating it back to academic usage of "signalling" and "virtue" that are not describing the supposed activity of "virtue signalling" --Zed (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The academic usage section is poorly written, seems to take only one view or opinion in account and does not explain anything about signal theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.196.201 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"is a pejorative for"

Back in October, I reverted part of a change that changed the first sentence from '~ is <explanation>' to '~ is a pejorative for <explanation>', as the term has valid usage outside of being a pejorative. Apparently this was re-added somewhere back in February, so I changed it back, but my change was shortly after reverted. I have no intentions of getting into an edit war about this (in fact I just wanted to quickly fix it and move on) so I'll just bring this up on the talk page: Can we get a consensus about whether the article should introduce the term as being a pejorative or not?

  • Personally, I feel that calling anything not universally accepted as a pejorative a pejorative is not NPOV, even if a lot of people - even if MOST people - consider it as such.
  • Regardless of that, the intro and 'academic usage' sections deal with non-pejorative usage. If these are incorrect because the term is only a pejorative, these should be removed; if somehow these are correct AND the word is only a pejorative, they should be less prominent (section moved to later in article, info from intro moved there or to similar location).
  • Currently used sources imply it's not necessarily a pejorative (e.g. "Guardian writer David Shariatmadari says that while the term serves a purpose, its overuse as an ad hominem attack during political debate has rendered it a meaningless political buzzword").
  • If virtue signalling is a pejorative, what is the neutral word for the concept? The concept certainly exists, and pejoratives are derogatory descriptions of concepts known by more proper names. The concept possibly being perceivable as offensive does not make the term a pejorative. Terms like 'fake news' likewise aren't pejoratives despite very frequently being used in a derogatory manner.

82.197.199.203 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally think the lede is spot on, it's an academic term that also has a common, pejorative use - that is what is described, and that is exactly what the term means - The term has two meanings, firstly the academic meaning, then the pejorative, derived from the academic. Terms evolve over time, it is not unusual for an academic term to have a different, but related common usage. Politically correct is a similar term, it describes language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. However, it is also used in a pejorative manner by all sides of politics. Bacondrum (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The "academic usage" section doesn't seem to actually be about the term (it was a giant mess of unrelated stuff about the larger topic of signaling.) All the coverage of the term that I can find describes it as a pejorative neologism or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 PSA

Hello all! I am writing this to let all editors know that I will be heavily contributing to and/or editing this page as part of a project for graduate school. Please expand on this thread if any information that I add needs to be changed or omitted, or if you think that there is anything that should be added that has not yet been addressed. Thanks! Lmstrickland (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Major Edit 24 Nov. 2019

I have severely edited the page as per my announcement last month. I have added in a thorough description of signaling theory as it pertains to biology, psychology, and economics. I have left in most of the information that was previously there, I simply moved it to a different location on the page. Some of the previous sentences were reworded to avoid direct quotations from the sources. I realize this may be a lot! Please let me know if you have any qualms or questions regarding this edit, as I would be more than happy to hear suggestions and what you all think! Best wishes. --Lmstrickland (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Great job, massive improvement. Bacondrum (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Bacondrum! Please let me know if you think anything needs to be changed or removed! --Lmstrickland (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have major objections to the expanded "signaling" section, which is mostly not about "virtue signaling" at all, that I can see. Stuff that doesn't mention virtue signaling specifically probably belongs in signalling theory instead. In particular, connecting the term to the academic concept of signaling theory requires sources explicitly making that connection to avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and that's a good point, Aquillon. From my perspective, an understanding of signaling theory is imperative to the understanding of virtue signaling. I included the section on signaling theory in order to provide readers with enough background to be able to understand how it applies to signaling virtue. I certainly overlooked the inclusion of papers that directly relate virtue signaling to signaling theory, and these papers do exist (Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly review of biology, 82(2), 97-125.; Gugerty, M. K. (2009). Signaling virtue: Voluntary accountability programs among nonprofit organizations. Policy Sciences, 42(3), 243-273., to name a couple). Would adding these papers to the signaling theory section and describing how it relates to virtue signaling as evidenced in such papers warrant the inclusion of the signaling theory section? Please let me know your thoughts! --Lmstrickland (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that those sources don't, that I can see, discuss "virtue signaling" at all (they don't even use the term, at least in a quick search.) I feel that a bare minimum would have to be that any source used here must unambiguously use the term "virtue signaling" in as many words, and, ideally, if you want more than a few brief sentences devoted to it (ie. here's one source that happened to use "virtue" and "signaling" together without attaching any special meaning to it), what I'd really want to see is either a source mentioning James Bartholomew by name, or a source unambiguously about the term "virtue signaling" as a topic. Without that it feels like this is WP:SYNTH connecting two unrelated topics that coincidentally happen to both use the word "signaling." Even with such a cite, the section went massively off in a tangent into stuff that had no clear connection to the topic at all (ie. most sources there weren't about virtue in even the most disconnected and abstract sense, much less the neologism that is the topic of this article.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I totally see where you are coming from. Let me try to explain my point of view: I believe that the page should not simply refer to the term as James Bartholomew claims to have originated it, but instead about the concept of virtue signaling as a whole. As mentioned in the article, Geoffrey Miller's recent book from this year, for example, describes that people have been virtue signaling for years. I would argue that just because Bartholomew claims to have been the term originator, this doesn't mean that the page should only discuss the use of the term "virtue signaling" and its relation to Bartholomew, but the act of signaling virtue as it has been used historically (which is described in the above sources). That is, my argument is that just because a source doesn't directly contain the term "virtue signaling" does not mean that it is not discussing virtue signaling, since the phrase had only come about since around 2015 (in prior cases it may be referred to as "signaling of virtues" or something of the sort, for example). This was the logic for the inclusion of the discussion of signaling theory across multiple domains; all of these were discussing signaling virtue in some way (probably less so for the psychology section), though I definitely failed to make that point clear. Would we be able to come to a consensus of the inclusion of signaling theory if included numerous sources regarding the relation between the fields and their relation to the signaling of virtue? --Lmstrickland (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I think signal theory deserves a mention, as long their relationship can be demonstrated through RS's. Aquillon is right that as it stood it was a synthesis. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
In hindsight, I certainly agree that it was a synthesis, and I apologize for inadvertently doing so (still pretty new to wiki editing). I believe I can add sources which describe the signaling of virtue as it pertains to signaling theory. Before I do so, however, I would like to ensure that this is a useful exercise and come to a consensus among current active page editors about what to incorporate and how it should be incorporated. I would like to give adequate time for responses on the talk page before making any more drastic changes. --Lmstrickland (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

After allowing enough time for responses, I have added back in a section on biological signaling theory, with references that relate the signaling of virtue to signaling theory. Hopefully this abbreviated version does not have too much additional information as suggested previously, and is clear as to how it pertains to virtue signaling. Please let me know any thoughts or if anything should be added or removed. Additionally, in regards to the removal of the "Publications" section, I have added it back in but changed the heading to "Larger Works". My intent with this section was to address any larger works (like books) that are exclusively about virtue signaling, and to include these as a bulleted list as they arise. This would allow readers to find external sources and delve deeper into the topic if they so choose. To my knowledge, Geoffrey Miller's book is the only one that exists thus far, given the novelty of the phrase, and that is why it was the only one in the section. Again, please let me know if you agree or disagree with these changes. Thanks! --Lmstrickland (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I lack the level of interest to get involved in this, but the recently added In evolutionary biology section appears to be largely or entirely OR. EEng 06:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, EEng. Again, I'm a pretty new wiki editor, so I would appreciate if you were able to expand on how this is OR, so that I don't continue to make this mistake? I was under the impression that providing sources that discuss the link between evolutionary signaling theory and the signaling of virtues/moral values would allow for a discussion of signaling theory.--Lmstrickland (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Every source in the Evolutionary biology section predates the coining of virtue signaling (in its pejorative sense) in 2015 (or, maybe, 2013) so there cannot possibly be anything in those sources discussing this phrase or explaining how much (or little) these biological concepts inform Bartholomew's meaning. And the section on Miller's book is sourced only to the book itself; what source tells us it's a "larger work" on our topic? I realize this may be frustrating because I know it's part of a school project for you, but I don't know what else to tell you. EEng 10:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No worries EEng, I appreciate any sort of response! That explanation definitely makes sense. I suppose the question that I am raising is should the page only address the phrase virtue signaling as James Bartholomew used it? This seems rather narrow, since studies have looked at the signaling of virtue and moral values long before this phrase was coined. My argument is that the page should cover the signaling of virtue in its entirety, and that Bartholomew's coining of the term is just what led to the popularization of the idea as a whole. Is this not something that should be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmstrickland (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I would argue that the article is weighted wrong with so much emphasis on the pejorative use. The article should focus on the broader, academic usage first and foremost, the pejorative use is a shallow buzzword that deserves mentioning, but not to be the focus of the article when the academic usage predates the pejorative by decades and is far more widely used - maybe a paragraph or two at the end of the article for the pejorative. Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This is what I was thinking also, but I would definitely like to hear more from those who think the page should be focused on the use of the term from 2015 onwards. Perhaps we will be able to come to a consensus! --Lmstrickland (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid my ignorance has been showing. If virtue signaling is an established concept in biology (or elsewhere) then the article should be primarily about that, with only a small nod to the pejorative sense. And I apologize for not looking more closely. EEng 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the current article describes this relationship between scholarly and popular use well. The signalling of virtue has long been discussed, but the particular phrase "virtue signalling" only occurs rarely. I also think it makes sense to cover "signalling of virtue" and "virtue signalling" in the same article. The overlap in meaning is substantial. One is just the other with a negative twist and a catchier name. Yaris678 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Criticism" is stupid

The difference between "virtue signaling" and statement of honest opinion is whether one chooses a side based on a perceived advantage from a group or society as a whole in doing so. The two are not exclusive and usually both are present; but declaration of sides has different percentages of peer-pressure or advantage-seeking; and die-hard come-what-may statement of something one knows to be true, regardless of disadvantage of calling it or personal preference. There is obviously a difficulty in telling what a person's motivations are and so such ad hominems are tricky. However, the "criticism" in this article is akin to saying that the concept of a "lie" is meanginless, because the person calling someone else a liar may be lying for advantage as well. That doesn't disqualify the existence of the concept. The "criticism" does just that: attempts to deny the existence of a type of behavior that may well apply to people simply because of a difficulty of determining whether it is true. Everyone knows that there are ways to determine whether someone is lying. Similarly, there are ways to determine whether someone sides with something to maintain/elevate his status; being all talk and no action, or avoiding action if it comes at negative total advantage cost, for example.

Vree (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.186.219 (talk)

Hi Vree. I don't think the analogy with lying holds. In the case of lying, either the accuser or the accused will be telling the truth, and the matter becomes empirical - it relies on what the truth of the matter is. If A says P and B says that A is lying and that it is actually the case that not-P. Then (with caveats about misunderstandings, misinformation etc...) by determining whether P is true or not will determine the liar. Lies being intrinsically related to truth-conditions. Evidence can be provided to prove the case one way or another. We even have sections of legal systems which adjudicate over such matters. We might not be able to determine the actual truth of the matter in some cases, and so whether someone is lying or not will become a matter of subjective opinion, but that doesn't mean the same as claiming the concept of lie is meaningless. There are just some particular cases in which we don't have adequate evidence to determine the truth of the matter. In the case of 'virtue signalling' though, there is no such truth of the matter. If you say I am virtue signalling, I can reasonably say your calling out of my virtue signalling is itself an act of virtue signalling (unless you've accused me of it in private maybe) - you are signalling your own virtue of cynicism etc... in order to enhance your own social standing with some particular group. Now it clearly is the case that virtue signalling exists - we are social beings and give off signals all the time, no doubt many relating to what we perceive to be virtues. The point is as a pejorative it is an empty, circular attack. If one accuses another of 'virtue signalling', the implication is that virtue signalling is bad. But if one is performing an act of virtue signalling by accusing another of virtue signalling, then presumably the accuser doesn't think it is bad when they are doing it. So it becomes hypocritical. To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, one has to deny that one is engaged in an act of virtue signalling when calling out publicly another person for virtue signalling. But then one is left in the position of saying what another person does is virtue signalling, but what I do isn't - despite a reasonable case to say it is structurally the same. So, in effect, one is saying 'that person is dishonest in their motives for saying P, and I am honest in my motives for calling out their virtue signalling'. Honesty being a virtue by most accounts, this again seems like a signalling of virtue. and so we run into the same problem as before.
So the source of the disanalogy between the concepts of virtue signalling and lying is that on the one hand, with virtue signalling, the subject matter is usually an opinion, which is a complex, abstract and transient entity. Whereas with lying, in the majority of cases, the subject matter is an empirical fact(s). Pjconnolly123 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this discussion belongs on a Wikipedia talk page. The article should reflect the actual (sourced) use of the term (in notable sources). If you have an opinion which is critical about how Virtue Signalling is used as a term, it is irrelevant to Wikipedia. You can write an opinion piece about it somewhere. If that piece makes its way into a notable publication, you can then link to it as a source (though this is not normally seen as good practice as it's seen as self-serving). My point is, your opinion about how the term is used does not change the fact of how the term is used or what critics have said about it. Jolta (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You might call it oppinion but it's a shared oppinon., yet this article quotes the gardian which is an closed-minded oppinon based online blog (not a tru new service)... seems this is a left wing article spouting leftie ideas to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.101.226 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The Guardian is one of the most respected newspapers in the English speaking world. It's not a blog, you're obviously confused - I doubt that you've ever even read it. The piece in question is an opinion piece by the author of this book on language[[6]] published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson so he seems a good source - of course if it hadn't been attributed to him I'd argue that it should be. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Academic use section is pure synthesis.

None of the uses in the section relate to each other, none of them actually use the term "virtue signaling", and none of them are related to the topic of the article by any secondary sources; they appear to be some random Google Scholar results which happened to have "virtue" and "signaling" near each other, dug up in an attempt to perform WP:OR with the aim of producing an academic background for the pejorative. (The Google Books example - which was particularly irrelevant to the topic - even had the search still visible in the URL.) There's no unified topic there, so there's nothing to support an article or relate to the larger topic here; based on this, I think the section should probably be deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. After considering what you've said I wouldn't object to deleting the section. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Its not synthesis. There are sources that relate the recent pejorative usage to these older academic uses. At worst, you can consider this a WP:CONCEPTDAB. -- Netoholic @ 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
What sources? Those are the ones we should be citing there, if reliable ones exist. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, when you keep removing content from the page it certainly makes it difficult. Stop pushing your POV removing info about the academic origin of the term. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic Don't accuse other editors of acting in bad faith, focus on content. If you know there are or were sources that relate the recent pejorative usage to these older academic uses then show us, your preferred version is still there in the pages history, simply copy and past the url here. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Moral posturing

"Virtue signalling" went by the name of "moral posturing" before James Bartholomew was born. So the stuff about "prior lack of terminology referring to the act" is just plain rot. 31.48.245.88 (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a spurious claim, simply James Bartholomew signalling his virtue. lol. Bacondrum (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Different terms?

Adding to this: are there different terms with a similar meaning in English? -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

While discussing the backgrounds of the topic in the German wikipedia, we found out, that there are a lot of different ways to translate it, mentioned in journalistic source. Translating them back shows, why I'm asking:
  • moralizer / virtuecrat / wikt:unco guid - Moralapostel
  • Tugendwächter - ?
  • Moralprediger - ?
  • wiseacre - Besserwisser
These words show that the behaviour and the value and criticism of it is not new. On the other hand the journalists also made up new words (6 neologisms at least) or used a verbal description of the act (5-6 paraphrasings). Amtiss, SNAFU ? —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not new, just a new term for it. Other similar English words and terms include

Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmm interesting, I arrived randomly. Perhaps we need more discussion on similarities as well as any "nuanced" dissimilarities among these terms. I did not make these connections when i read the article. Luckily I read the talkpage here. To avoid this, better to add these terms to the article. Other similar terms are
I have added all of missing terms to article from all editors above. Please review, feel free to remove any entry you feel is not appropriate.
Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"See also" entries added

Based on the discussion in the Talk:Virtue_signalling#Moral_posturing section above. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Clean up summary

Randomly arrived, new to the term and topic. Ended up cleaning it up to make it easier to grasp in one glance.

  • No addition/deletion of content. Since this is first edit, want to just ease into it.
  • Change Summary:
    • Headings made self descriptive to enhance glance through TOC reading and navigability.
    • Headings are based on the essence of preexisting content.
    • Additional subheadings added for glance through TOC reading and quick comprehension as well as to implicitly encourage growth of those section.
    • Text related to definition of the term co-located under appropriate new sub heading.
    • Criticism made separate section, per wikipedia convention.
    • Subheadings "Citations" and "External links" grouped under "reference" heading.

First impression: Article is content light, both in support as well in criticism, also lacks counter criticism as well. I might do some edits based on the preexisting citations in the next iteration. Please review. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia openly discourages criticism sections. A lot of articles use them because they are badly written, but that is not the approved way of doing jt. As it leads to a lack of context, or a lot of additional context being required after the fact. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pejorative/derogatory or not?

I think the fact that the common use of the term is derogatory or pejorative needs to be included in the lede, it's like leaving "During daylight, the sky appears to be blue" out of the Sky article's lede. Based on this peer reviewed academic source I think we should describe the contemporary, common use as derogatory https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795490/ quote: "a phenomenon commonly referred to as “virtue signaling” [51]. Although somewhat neglected in psychological or social-science literature, “virtue signaling” seems most often to be used as a derogatory term" It is used commonly in a derogatory manner, this blatant fact being absent makes the lede read like a victim of Americas culture wars. Bacondrum (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Agree; excluding this would be non-neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Obviously. The term has no meaningful non-pejorative usage; the academic section is pure synthesis that lacks a common topic and appears to consist of random unrelated papers. --Aquillion (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Bacondrum, please take note, the citation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6795490) may not be WP:RELIABLE because it is from open/free-access open-source PLOS which makes money by taking payments from the authors who self-publish their articles. Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
PloS IS a Reliable Source; they were the first journal to publish content for users (public) to read for FREE. Most journals made money by selling subscriptions, but this model of not allowing the US public free access to the results of scientific research funded with government (public taxes) dollars made people push to change the publication model for researchers. Read PloS' history.---Avatar317(talk) 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. While predatory open access journals are a problem, PLOS One isn't one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The definition is extremely inadequate

Article says it's "the conspicuous expression of moral values". Firstly that definition doesn't limit us to virtue: I don't think it would be virtue signalling if I proudly made claims to being wicked and immoral (as somebody like Aleister Crowley might do!). Secondly, the whole point and the reason it's called "signalling" is that it is done to advertise to others. So if I'm a loud angry preacher in a church, I am conspicuously expressing my moral values, but I am not disingenuously attempting to "signal" to others: I am genuine. The definition really needs to capture that distinction; it is crucial. 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:99E9:FE4:6B94:7BB3 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary has got it right: "... in an attempt to make oneself look virtuous". 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:99E9:FE4:6B94:7BB3 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
One man's virtue isn't necessarily another man's. Yes, a pastor preaching may be signalling to others if he is doing it for the express purpose of aggrandising himself, his beliefs, or some construct to which people might ascribe value. It can be argued that, based on the sources, any argument from authority such as the Bible is a method of virtue signalling, particularly when it is about subject matter the Bible doesn't cover (abortion for instance). In short - virtue signalling is about arguing a moral position from a place where it is conspicuous by using generally disapproving phrases of terminology about something else, with little backing. Vegans arguing they are better humans because they don't eat meat for instance. Christians arguing they are better humans because they oppose abortion. Atheists arguing they are better humans because they only use rational logic. Each relies upon the basic concept that there is virtue we should all see in their behaviour, or an absence of virtue in someone else's behaviour. Koncorde (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Virtue_signalling/Archive_1&oldid=1028646927"