Talk:Social group/Archive 1

Archive 1

grammar etc

started talk page to continue conversation from group Tedernst | talk 16:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks !! I will start the clean up with the error that occurred in CONTENTS, and then proceed to the undesired bold format in the definition, and so on to the unattractive Notes. I would be pleased for you to call to my attention any area that needs work.68.220.36.16 20:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I had corrected your headings for you with the == notation. That's how the table of contents gets generated. Please change it back. Also, please do not use the < center > tag. That section should be left aligned as with the others. Tedernst | talk 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the two suggestions. Never would have discovered either, especially the center tag. I didn't think the == notation was supposed to show up in the article. Does it take a while for the TOC to generate.68.220.36.16 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the headings again, as well as the bulletted and numbered lists. No, it doesn't take time for the table of contents to generate, if you have the headings correct (text begins at least one line below heading, not on the same line). Tedernst | talk 20:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs some grammar and clean-up, I only managed to add links through the section "non groups" and only barely touched some of the grammar and formatting. Mark 09:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

In response to the tag concerning merger with the Group( Sociology), I just reviewed that article and was dismayed at the shallowness of the content. This is an important article in its content, which takes an entirely different perspective than traditional Sociology. Sociology has taken a less precise definition of Group as its base and has basically assumed a rationally functioning group. It is true , as discussed in "Group" D& D, that Sociologists did the tremendous amount of work on gangs in the 1920s-1950s but they did not follow this in any thorough discussion of non groups or of the evolutionary roots of a group. There is no Talk section on the Sociogy article, perhaps reflecting a lack of interest, granting that the Talk section of "G" D&D has been mostly about style and format.I may be naive about WP, but I am not naive about this subject matter, and think that this could be a popular site for WP.Should WP be as interested in content as it apparently is in style and format. In general I would oppose merging with the current Sociology article, and think that there may be important reasons for not being in the Sociology Section.208.63.237.229 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I continue to have trouble with LOG IN. WP usually promises to send new password, but doesn't follow through.Rather than my original registration as above, I think I am under the 68.220.10.208 account today.68.220.47.4 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The account usually depends on what computer/internet service provider you are using. If u log in and get a user name, then you will receive a password. Anytime I forget mine, a new one is sent instantaneously on request. Make sure your email details are correct.--File Éireann 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

But to continue the discussion, I have read quite a bit of the material under Sociology, and find some interesting and worthwhile discussions. I could document the differences in perspective, philosophy, and research between Sociology and this article if necessary. But under Sociology there is also a long section entitled Social Psychology which does address in brief comments some of the same material that I tend to. There is even a mention of Muzafer Sherif and the Robber's Cave Study. So if a move is absolutely necessary, I would prefer it be to this section.BUT, the Talk portion of Social Psychology is long and preoccupied with a mildly heated debate about the existence of two disciplines: a sociological social psychology ; and a psychological social psychology. I agree with that debate because without specific references they are referring to the differences in philosophy, perspective, and attitude toward research that I was commenting on as above. I think social psychology should not be classified under Sociology.

I would hate to have this article get involve in that long term debate and be totally buried, so I continue to support an independent existence.68.220.47.4 19:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not - and to what extent - social psych is sociological depends upon the sociological perspective. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that 'symbolic interactionists' and 'methodological individualists' would simply say that social psychology is sociology, full stop. Anyway, disciplinary concerns are the least of mine. I'd agree about merging this article with the "group (sociology)" article, if only because the content on the D&D article is so much better than that at the group (soc) article right now, and the D&D's content deserves to be recognized.

That doesn't mean that the perspective offered here in the D&D article will be the only perspective, though. Other perspectives, ones that lean further into the more stereotypically sociological side of things, might get their own independent sections, depending on whether or not there ends up being a need. Lucidish 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your discussion. You make several good points. Who makes the decision? If there is a merger, who does the merging? Or can the "merger" be a deletion and replacement?70.157.180.162 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did that account number come from? Never heard of it or saw it before. Could it be a response to my request for a new password via e-mail. 70.157.180.162 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mergers are easy. I (or anyone) can do it, and help integrate the two articles, if that's okay with everyone. (You should be able to get more info from the help pages on how to merge articles if you're curious.) There's no formal procedure for making the decision, just a discussion period where people can get their opinions out on the pros and cons.

If you have a dynamic IP address, that will explain why your signature shows a different series of numbers. Right now you're posting anonymously: those numbers aren't your account, but the unique series of digits that your computer/ISP have in connecting to the internet. It would be a great idea to get an account, and they're automatic and free: just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup and pick a name and password. An e-mail address is optional so it really takes no time at all. Lucidish 20:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I give up on the merger, and will learn how to do it the usual hard way.I would prefer to do the actual editing. Ordinarily that would be good advice about registering, but I have done that twice, and thought I had two account numbers 208.63.244.195 and 68.220.10.208. One of which used to come up. Your idea of an anonymous posting is interesting. I'm in profound suspense to what number comes today.70.157.180.182 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Maybe registering for the third time will be the charm.70.157.180.182 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging was not as easy as directions allowed one to expect. But I got it done, losing some of the formatting along the way, but reworking what I knew about was not bad. Now will somebody pay some attention to the content.70.157.180.182 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're having troubles, but glad to see you got the merger done.

Hrm. Maybe you don't have cookies enabled? If so, then you would have to log in again every new session. Lucidish 02:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So with the help of a WP administrator, I finally got logged in. Meanwhile I added a definition of reference groups from Sherif to the original article which now acts as a good introduction in the merger.Islandsage 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"A Google search on == ongoing edits/cleanup ==

“small group theory” produced 58,600,000 entries, the vast majority having to do with the use of small groups in the educational process, teaching in small groups with the emphasis on the small number of participants, while common purpose seemed to reside, at least initially, in the teacher." This text was removed because when the more appropriate link is substituted for it, a mere 9,860 hits are found, which I thought would undermine the point that was trying to be made in the paragraph. Lucidish 02:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the editing, combining, and the above explanation. I guess you didn't think that the heading "INTRODUCTION" before the original article was helpful, and I was surprised about changing the notes format.Is there some rationale that I can learn for the difference between numbers and names format.Islandsage 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob. All of the material that was previously under "introduction" is now in the proper place for introductions; you don't need to assign intro stuff to a section, it gets placed in the intro automatically so long as it appears prior to a section header.

My reference edit was an on-the-fly decision, more pragmatic than stylistic. Originally in the article there were two bibliographies, and they needed to be merged into a single bibliography (at the bottom). But each of the two biblios had a number scheme starting with 1 up to 8 or so, while adding them together needed a complete change in which references were numbered what.

Admittedly, after I merged the two, I could have kept them as numbered citations within the text itself, and it probably would have looked far better. But by then I had changed the order of sections, which screwed up the order in which each citation appeared. Setting the whole thing straight would've taken more work than I wanted to do.

Long story short: it doesn't really matter which format we use in terms of how you cite things in the text. You can change it back to numbered citations if you want, rather than actual named citations. I just did it because it was the most expedient thing to do at the time.

Another thing: I removed the Alito mention, because it seemed unencyclopedic.

I'll give you a set of helpful links on your talk page that I hope will get you comfortable with any stylistic standards Wiki has. Lucidish 22:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The explanation was helpful. I will probably change them back to numbers when all the dust clears away.I thought that when names were used, the references were supposed to be listed in alphabetical order with dates and name and date in the text.

I have no major objection to the combining of the two articles.Your more objective view may be the better one. I started with the concept about Group not only to give a more precise definition, but to draw attention to what I consider an important topic of Non-Groups. I was a little disappointed at the substitution of " Dispersal of Groups ". The removal of the Roberts/ Alito hearing may have helped the encylopedic tone, but removed a wonderful, timely example of Non-Group behavior. Productive functioning groups may be the source of human progress, but Non-Groups result in most of the failures, and tragedies despite their being necessities on the way to formation of groups as well as the fabric of life in general.Islandsage 22:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title because I thought it fit the content of the paragraph better. At least, group dispersal does seem to be the content of the first paragraph of that section, where it talks about groups dispersing into dyads, or becoming too top-heavy due to increase in density of population, death of leader, loss of purpose, etc. If that's not the case or I misunderstood then we can change it to something else. Upon re-reading, it seems as though the section could be summarized as "Weakening, dispersal, and threats to groups". But "Non-group" doesn't seem to capture the text in the most effective way.

I guess in the end I don't understand the Alito example in this context, or how it illustrates what's being talked about in the section. Could you say a bit more about what you mean? Lucidish 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have been writing and reading on computer screens for fifteen years, I still find it hard to get the integrated meanings of content by a quick reading. It will take me some time to recognize and understand the significance of some of the changes you have made. Let me suggest that you reread "Significance of Group" and the first part of "Territory and Dominance". That is about as good as I can do in explaining the importance of NON_- Groups.

Let's pass up the discussion of the Judicial committee hearing for a moment. I'm not sure that I have been able to convey my point about non-groups.Meanwhile you might apply the individual elements of the definition of group that I propose to the hearings, and tell me what organizational principles were in effect. Islandsage 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was signed in, and the wrong signature came up. Corrected it.Islandsage 01:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I just don't understand what you mean by a "non-group". Do you mean an individual? Or a social unit that lacks one or more characteristics listed by Sherif (i.e. aggregates, competitors, nation-states)? There's often trouble in defining something by a negative.

I try not to follow American politics too closely. It upsets me. As far as I'm concerned, the American legislature has been dissolved, and its rulers are illegitimate.

All I know about Alito is that he frequently gave legalistic non-answers (i.e., said that Bush is "not above the law" as a dodge to a question about the Commander-in-chief clause); was threatened by a filibuster by Kerry and Kennedy (which didn't work due to new laws); was the replacement candidate for Harriet Miers, a Bush cabinet official who had no experience doing anything; may or may not support Roe-Wade; and was ultimately approved as a Justice. I don't know anything specific about the procedures or how well they've been followed, so it's hard for me to understand how this is an exemplar of group behavior, and in what respect. Lucidish 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right!! Forget the Alito thing for the present. If I did not make the Non- group stuff clear, either you,I,or both of us have a problem.Did you reread carefully the sections I suggested. I will reread Sociology and Social Psychology and try to figure out why we are having this issue , like two trains passing in the night. This was the basic issue of making two separate articles. Were you a major contributor to the Sociology article, the Social Psychology article, or just the SP talk. Dominance and territory are two distinct concepts for me. They are the heart of the discussion of non-groups. Maybe there is a better term, but I don't think "dispersal of group" does it. Not all social behavior of humans reachs the organization stage of group to be dispersed.Islandsage 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I did find your User page, read OUTLOOK, UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICS, AND UP:TALK. Left a note for you on your USER:TALK or maybe OUTLOOK.68.220.6.2 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I was the dominant contributor to the SP article up until recently. I did re-read those sections, but the phrase "non-group" only appears once. I'm sorry if I've missed something, but I did try to find it and just don't know what you mean. Could you just clarify what a "non-group" is for me so I can get on the same page? Lucidish 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading your philosophy from the USER page, I am amazed that you did such a good job of editing and combining the two articles. Habermas to Dewey. Can there be two more polarized philosophies? I don't think I can understand Habermas, but you said clearly in Outlook that you do not take direct observation seriously. Everything about Dewey's transactions and about these two papers is about the necessity and use of direct observation and its presentation in language (probably not universal pragmatics). Did you read TRANSACTIONS.

By the way, NON-GROUPS was one of the headings that you left out. Maybe non-groups is not the best concept to debate.How do you conceptualize all the stuff that goes on between people when there is not a group? Do you think that Sociology has all the concepts and words that it needs to describe what people do socially in two-ses and three-ses? Seems as if I remember that sociologists are not too satisfied with a basic concept of "social relations".Islandsage 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't take credit for the fine work that's been done on the Universal Pragmatics page, if that's what you're referring to. While I created much of the framework, and acted as editor for subsequent edits, it was another user who really provided much of the excellent exposition you see there.

Habermas is a tough read, and I can't claim to be fluent in his work. But one insight that I gleaned from his essay on UP which I use in everyday life is really easy to grasp: his explanation of the goals of communication (which are to utter something, to utter something understandable, to be understood, and to reach a mutual understanding). When discussing fragile issues with someone, it is easy to get drawn into insults and sophistry when you forget the underlying purpose of a conversation in the first place, which is (at minimum) to not be misunderstood. It's also important to understand that these communicative goals are not just etiquette, but a portion of the basis of reason itself, specifically when it comes to informal logic.

I presume when you say that I 'don't take direct observation seriously' you're referring to my comment about how appearances are ajustified. What I mean to say is that, just by going on appearances alone, we only get half a proposition: "The blob which I hold before my eyes which I call a 'hand'" is a subject which lacks a predicate, and nothing true can be said unless there is both a subject and predicate. We don't say, for instance, "Truck" is true or false, because that makes no sense (in the indicative mood, anyway). We have to say "The truck is blue" or something before we can judge truth or falsity. The long and the short of it is, direct observation is a necessary condition for all knowledge, but direct observation alone can't even make any sense of the idea of "truth" or "falsity" (assuming that some sense can be made of those ideas in some other way).

I think most folks will just refer to non-group interactions as "interactions", but if there is another term of art that could be used here instead of that, then that's fine too. Lucidish 01:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"Transactions" doesn't link anywhere except a disambig page, so I can't read it. Lucidish 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought you could link to a section of an article. The proper link, I guess, is to JOHN DEWEY and then to the section on Transactions.But nevermind, you explained your remark about direct observation.

You indicated your problem with non-groups, and to some extent I am also not satisfied with the term. But your reference to "interactions" as the term to describe those social behaviors that are not up to the organization as a real group is pretty limp, almost as uninformative as social relations. Did you miss the point of all my discussion of territory and dominance? Please say it isn't so.

I made a few changes yesterday in the article, removing "anthropocentrism", changing Identification to Recognition, and inserting "Recognition of Dominance" as a heading. There may have been some other minor changes in language that I can't remember.Islandsage 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The above time is wrong, and still wrong. Thought I had corrected it in Preferences.Islandsage 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Islandsage 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

New edits

Hey I.S.. Noticed your reversions. Let me explain my most recent edits: they were based around my observation before, that a) the comments earlier in the article / intro have indicated that the Sherif tradition will not be assumed, and hence, less strict forms can be called groups; b) "non-groups" isn't meaningful or precise enough; c) gangs can retrospectively be considered groups by Sherif's definition, anyway. You never replied to those comments, which left me with the itch to make the change. Which of these observations do you disagree with? Lucidish 18:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagee with all of them. You continue to misunderstand what I am trying to do, and try to force some unacceptable concepts. I really appreciate all the help you have given in the merger and clean up.But I have reached the end point of my tolerance for all the nit picking in content. I believe you are sincere, and therefore , I would suggest that you write your own article disagreing as much as you like. I suspect you find it easier to edit than to write.

Please let my article alone. I realize that I can't stop you from editing. But I also know that an administrator can give me some protection. I have gone on to writing another article and do not have the time to play this game with you.Islandsage 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What game? I'm not going to write my own article, because that would be redundant (and besides, I don't claim to know the material as you do). I'm not going to abandon trying to improve this one, which I think is very good but could be even better. I'm just trying to get clear what it is you mean, here, because if that's not manifest, then the reader will not understand.

To be completely clear: this isn't your article. It's a Wikipedia article, licensed under GFDL. Nobody owns it: it's free, just like all wikis. Lucidish 01:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

Wow. Not a single image in here.Drahcir^{my talk}_{get my skin} 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition

Hi...I thought I would throw out a very general definition of a group; Two or more people who interact, and engage in a common activity. Interaction may take three forms: competition, conflict, or cooperation.Tufwheel 03:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It doesn't half waffle towards the end... it really needs some conciseness, and most of all, some bloody references!

Please take a look at User talk:Corrupt one/Scene (sociology) --Espoo 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added

This wiki requires serious copyediting, for both encyclopedic tone and clarity of argument. Terms are used which are confusing, like "non-groups". Lucidish 05:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete re-write needed. It also suddenly refers to "sets" which appear to be sub-groups or even groups. In the intro it posits common "identity" as a necessary condition for a group to exist. This is protesting too much and is circular - group entails identity and identity entails group. Sherifs definition defines what is then said to be a tool in talking about the thing defined. The tone of this article is confused and confusing.Empathyfreak (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So start rewriting... But why is the inclusion of identity circular? Identity, interaction, interdependence, etc. have all been suggested as defining attributes of a group. Without using one or more of these features, there is no clear distinction between groups and aggregates. Having a gathering of people in the same place and time does not necessarily entail a common identity (e.g. crowds) --Jcbutler (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of this article

The group is an important unit of analysis, not only in sociology but also in other social sciences, particularly anthropology and social psychology. I suggest that we change the name of this article to social group because it is more universal, yet still states exactly what kind of group is being discussed. Opinions? --Jcbutler (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

After almost three months without a comment, I went ahead and made the change. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The edit by 74.107.93.71 is vandalism. I tried to revert it, but there were conflicts and the technical details were a bit beyond my expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.37.41 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Territory and dominance section

The territory and dominance section is off topic and needs to be removed.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though I wonder if we could move it to a more appropriate article. It is also largely uncited. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. I believe that it is not obviously relevant content for someone seeking an encyclopaedic explanation of a social group. I have removed it. Someone else may choose to create a specific article for this content and reintroduce an appropriate segue. Cheers all. Andrew (talk) 06:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

who's paul hare

Thats a bizarre thing to have in the lead - I have no idea who paul hare is, I'm assuming he is a respected expert - but i don't know! 86.138.62.95 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. One year later subsequent changes have been made. Andrew (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Types of groups

In other news, I would suggest that the list of group types be truncated. I.e. trimmed down to a sentence that reflects the fact that the are innumerable ways to define groups. I think that as it stands people will keep adding group types until the cows come home. And then someone will add "cows" as a group type. Thoughts? Andrew (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Intro is WP:WEASEL words

I made a solid intro that defined "social group" but it was reverted back to weasel words WP:WEASEL. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC, so an article shouldn't be about more than one definition. If there are different definitions for a term then they should be in separate articles. Bhny (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed "has been defined as" as these weasel words are not needed. I don't see any contradiction to this broad definition Bhny (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. Thanks for your thoughts, and I absolutely agree that we should aim for language that is as precise and accessible as possible. I do feel that this is tricky with this article. ‘What is a social group?’ can be a pretty contentious issue and the “broad definition” has always been a matter of debate. Indeed, it is actually a very interesting topic and I suspect that many readers end up on this page for this very reason. I will say that I was less concerned with the weasel word issue as in this case the content reflects statements that are attributable and I believe this is considered acceptable.

What appears now could be close to a solution, but I didn’t want make any further attempts without discussion. Perhaps others will have suggestions for ideal language. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

no it's still terrible. this for example- although the best way to define social group is a matter of conjecture- is about as weasely as you could get. Is there really any opposition to defining it as 2 or more people? If a topic can't be defined then there shouldn't even be an article Bhny (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. It isn’t (generally) the two or more people component that is the issue. It is the second part of that sentence that raises eyebrows. I.e. “who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity”. With a bit of consideration I suspect that you could think of some ‘groups’ that do interact with each other but do not share a sense of unity, or ‘groups’ that do share a sense of unity but that don’t interact in any intuitive sense. If you like I can suggest some appropriate further reading so that you can bring yourself up to speed. Otherwise you could follow some of the references already in the article.

In other news, you raise an interesting idea in saying that “if a topic can’t be defined then there shouldn’t even be an article”. I don’t think I share the perspective that concepts with complex and/or disputed definitions have no place in Wikipedia. This might threaten the existence of the very popular articles for morality, ethics, altruism and many others. Actually, it is with a hint of irony that I would suggest that it is because Wikipedia is not a dictionary that we can go beyond the broad definition that you seem to be so keen on. Does this sit reasonably well with you? Or anyone else for that matter? Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited it again. This time with "They may also share similar..." Bhny (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. I have reverted your latest edits. This is for two reasons. Firstly, and inline with the above discussion, your edits privilege one criterion over others and do not reflect the disputes surrounding the concept. More worryingly than this, however, is the fact that you edited referenced material in such a way that it no longer is representative of the content of that reference. It seems like a no brainer that this is a step in the wrong direction. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Which reference says "although the best way to define social group is a matter of conjecture". The only reference there is Cliff Notes! How can that even be a reference and also it doesn't say that it's a matter of conjectureBhny (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. The reference may not appear to be particularly illustrious, but I do not think this changes the fact that any editor should not alter content in such a way that it becomes a misrepresentation of the source material. You seem to not understand how your edits have had this impact, so I will briefly explain.

In this case, the reference states “A social group is a collection of people who interact with each other and share similar characteristics and a sense of unity”. This was fairly represented in the Wikipedia article. Without changing the reference, you changed that content to, “a social group is two or more humans who interact with one another. They may also share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity”. We can clearly see how your sentence privileges the criterion of interaction in a way that the source material does not. I of course do not believe that your edits were of nefarious intent. I certainly, however, think that they were not scholarly and needed to be reverted. Still, others may disagree and I am keen to hear those thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK so I will delete the conjecture part as it is not referenced Bhny (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. You also don’t appear to understand the purpose of this discussion. In order to avoid edit wars, where disagreement exists, editors are encouraged to seek consensus in the talk pages before continuing with controversial edits. Your approach, in contrast, appears to be to continue to edit the page while providing pithy descriptions of those edits here. Such actions subvert the utility of this discussion. It becomes little more than a reflection of the conflict taking place on the article itself, rather than the source of article stability it is intended to be. Others may disagree, and I am as usual very keen to hear those opinions. In the meantime, I am requesting that you return to this discussion in a substantive fashion before making further edits.

With regard to the issue of citations that you raise, removal would be one option. However, we have already noted the inconsistency that would create between the article intro and the article body. Another option would be to insert relevant citations. These could simply include those which are already in the article, but could also include some further citations. What do you (or others) think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked: Which reference says "although the best way to define social group is a matter of conjecture". You gave none so I removed the unreferenced OR. Also it's such a weird weasely sentence- conjecture means "inference from defective or presumptive evidence". Bhny (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps “conjecture” is indeed the wrong word. Perhaps “debate” would suit better. Either way, this is something that should be discussed here prior to further edits, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Again, with regard to citations, on the 20th of May I pointed you in the direction of references within the article that reflect the dissensus on the topic. I also offered to provide you with further reading on the topic. This was an offer you ignored. Then, today, you claimed OR and have attempted the same removal while four more references are staring you in the face. Given this bizarre reluctance to inform your opinions using information that is presented to you, and your insistence on unilateral editing decisions, I have to ask; are you some sort of elaborate Wikipedia vandal?

Also, sign your comments. Andrew (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

none of the references say "social group is a matter of conjecture". There's no reference after that sentence. Bhny (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The correct way to do this is to leave "conjecture" out until we find something properly referenced. You admit "conjecture" is wrong even- so why should it be there? You want me to leave something in that you admit is wrong? Bhny (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that you are unhappy leaving “conjecture” in there. Well I am unhappy with the inconsistency that your edit creates by positing one definition for social group while two or more are discussed in the body of the article. Hang on a second! I am going to propose something absolutely outrageous. What if we were to leave it as it was, come together on the article talk page, and then discuss the matter until we come to agreement on what should be done? Did I just blow your mind?

Your latest “no original research” claims made me chuckle. The six references all clearly reflect an as yet unresolved debate/conflict/argument/dispute/disagreement/discussion about the best way to define social group. You could even say that they all discuss the conjecture on the topic, depending on how you think about that word. You seem to think that Wikipedia editors who display basic comprehension skills are engaging in original research. Actually, this makes sense given your struggles with some of the above discussion. Andrew (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess you are unaware that 3 reverts in less than 24 hours is an automatic ban. WP:3RR Bhny (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the lead is the definition. We need a definition there, not something that says the definition is up to the reader. If there are 3 meaning then list them all, with references. A reference goes after the end of the sentence or paragraph. You seem to think that references later in the article are supporting the lead Bhny (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bhny. Firstly, the statement is “more than three reverts” in a 24 hour period. Secondly, such activity does not result in an “automatic ban” as you say. As I understand it, a temporary block may occur after an administrator is made aware of the situation and he or she deems that a block is appropriate. In this case I would welcome administrator attention. I believe that I have acted in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines and have sought both editor consensus and article stability. You, on the other hand, seem only to have stopped edit waring because you fear the 3 revert red flag system. It is unfortunate that you are gaming the system in this way and that you appear to have no sincere interest in Wikipedia’s consensus culture and subsequent guidelines.

Call me a sucker, but despite all of the above I am going to try once again to resolve this though discussion. Perhaps other editors may help with this.

• I would endorse an intro that provides one definition, while reflecting the ongoing debate. This is close to what we have now. References for the ongoing debate could include the six that I have suggested thus far (although somehow you seem to think this is original research).
• I would also endorse an intro that includes multiple definitions, which you now seem to be proposing. My concern is that it may be unwieldy, but it could work. You could draft something here if you like, or perhaps in your sandbox.
• I would not endorse an intro with a single definition. This is what you have been trying obstinately to get through without meaningful discussion.

I ask this question with great pessimism about what will follow: What are your thoughts Bhny? Andrew (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to write an intro because I have no idea what you would approve. You only infer that the other definitions contradict two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity. I have no idea how these other references contradict this pretty basic definition but you could write something like-

"X" disagrees with this, saying they need not share characteristics, while "Y" says that unity is also not needed.r1 ,r2. Bhny (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bhny. I am pleasantly surprised by your response. Thank you for engaging.

In answer to your question, social identity researchers are resistant to definitions of social group that stress interpersonal interdependence and objective similarity (such as is the case in our current lead definition). Instead, they posit that “common category membership is the necessary and sufficient condition for individuals to fell themselves to be, and act as, a group” (Turner , 1982, p27). Does this explain satisfactorily for you how the definition in the opening intro is not universally accepted? Obviously the article authors do a better job of explaining than me.

We could, as you most recently suggest, insert this into the intro. I would be happy with that, however, I would be concerned that in the long run the intro will become full of possible definitions (of which there are a few). This is why I am satisfied to simply point out that the definition provided there is not the only possible definition, and then let readers read further on this topic if they wish. In the meantime, I would happily endorse replacing “conjecture” with “debate” or something similar. I agree that “conjecture” is a less than obvious term to use here. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The definition[s] have to go in the lead along with the references. A lead can be 3 or 4 paragraphs. The problem is that if you don't define a topic in the lead you end up with an entire article about defining the concept (i.e. a dictionary article) and not an encyclopedia article which is about a topic. Bhny (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Drafting a possible intro

Hi Bhny. I have created a subheading to help cut to the chase a bit. Also, it was becoming quite a squeeze over to the right there.

Anyway, I think it is worth reminding you that it is perfectly normal for articles, including Wikipedia articles, to cover a debate on a particular topic. This is neatly exemplified here. As I have mentioned before, it is because Wikipedia is not a dictionary that this is made possible. I have no idea why you think Wikipeida subject matter should be limited in the way you describe. Particularly as you imply that you have now read at least six scholarly papers on the topic of defining a social group and presumably you now understand that much work has occurred in this area. I of course have no problem with an article that spends a great deal of time on this topic. Moving on though, I have tried to draft something that is in line with some of your expectations. What do you think of the following? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In the social sciences social groups are collections of individuals who are share a social relationship, although what exactly defines a social group is a matter of debate. In some circles social groups are defined as two or more humans who interact with one another, share similar characteristics and collectively have a sense of unity. Other theorists are a wary of definitions which stress the importance of interdependence or objective similarity. Researchers in the social identity tradition posit instead that “awareness of common category membership is the necessary and sufficient condition for individuals to fell themselves to be, and act as, a group”. Regardless, social groups come in a myriad of sizes and varieties. For example, a society can be viewed as a large social group.

Do you want to put this in your sandbox so we can edit it. It's going to be messy doing this on a talk page. Language like "In some circles" should be avoided. Unfortunately that would make the sentence "Cliff Notes defines social groups as...". Isn't there a standard text book definition we can get?? Bhny (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably a wise suggestion. I will set up a copy over there that we, and anyone else who is interested, can fiddle around with. And yes, I will change “in some circles”. It is the sort of thing that would beg a comment. See you over there. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion and took a look at the phrasing proposed by Andrew here. I would have to oppose any wording that delays defining what a social group is to the second sentence, e.g., something like "In the social sciences what exactly defines a social group is a matter of debate. Social groups have been defined..." I suggest starting with a very broad definition, then describing how the social cohesion and social identification models, as Turner, for instance, calls them, differ. That is, the former posits that social groups are made up of individuals who are interdependent to at least some degree and who share interpersonal similarities and relations, whereas the latter theorizes that the mere knowledge of group membership suffices for people to consider themselves, and act as, a social group. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sonicyouth86. I am largely happy with your ideas, although the implementation may be a bit tricky. Would you be able to suggest an appropriate “broad definition”? Alternatively, would you be happy if we just took Draft 1 here and remove the first sentence? As I mentioned above, I am concerned that this latter option will in the long run lead to an intro that is bloated with competing definitions. However, I would say that this would be a satisfactory short term solution. Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Progress update

Unfortunately Bhny and I have failed to reach consensus on this and the conversation has stalled. I hope other editors may offer their opinions as to the appropriate way forward. I will keep the continuation of the discussion in my sandbox for the foreseeable future. To briefly summarise the conflict though, I think the intro should in some way reflect the contention surrounding what characterizes a social group. I see this as useful content and critical for maintaining the internal consistency of the article. In contrast, Bhny does not believe that this is encyclopedic content (he may wish to restate his position here in his own words). Cheers all Andrew (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, U3964057 and Bhny have debated whether the phrase "although the best way to define social group is a matter of conjecture" should remain in the lead section. Bhny removed and U3964057 restored it repeatedly. I agree with Bhny that the phrase is the textbook example of WP:WEASEL. Who contests the given definition? Why? Do they provide alternative definitions? The phrase is an eyesore sitting there in the lead section. Thus, I support removing it. If there is a dispute over what characterizes a social group, then it needs to be summarized. Summarize what a social group is according to the social cohesion and the social identification approach per WP:LEAD. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the weasel words again since nobody else has come to their defense. If this conflicted definition problem needs to be outlined in the lead, please mention the what, who and the why of these definitions (as Sonicyouth86 says) Bhny (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Bhny. I am glad to hear that you are now happy to, at least for the meantime, have some reference to the competing definitions in the lead. We can have an internally consistent article after all. I have tried to be mindful of your (and Sonicyouth86's) other comments in the edit I have made along those lines. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

I propose that Community of interest be merged into Social group. This is because both articles are describing the same thing, with the former stub article seemingly just reflecting an attempt to popularize a particular nomenclature (see also the other stubs Community of purpose, Community of action, Community of circumstance, Community of place, Community of position). What do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Community of interest seems to lack a sense of unity, which is a defining feature of social group. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fgnievinski. Are you able to point me toward some sources along those lines? My reading of the sources in the community of interest article would suggest the opposite. I.e that a defining feature of communities of interest is some sense of unity (e.g. "A ‘community of interest’ is defined not by space, but by some common bond"). Not that they are great sources. I have notability and original research concerns about the article as well as well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Social group#Types includes Community, which leads to Community of interest, Community of place, etc. So community of interest seems to be a specific instance of more general social group construct. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: No reason to merge them. All of those articles would need to become subsections in that article which isn't appropiate. --Fixuture (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal For New Edit

i have yet to make any edits on the article; however, i would like to get into detail how different social groups & inclusion in them can affect one's health whether it be positive or negative. I will add my bibliography of the sources i have compiled so far right here so that others may look through them & suggest any additional sources of information as well as why one of my sources might not be useful to the article.

Health determined by social relationships at work. (2016, October 03). Retrieved October 04, 2016, from http://phys.org/news/2016-10-health-social-relationships.html

How Do Social Factors influence Health, Learn through online home study courses. (n.d.). Retrieved October 04, 2016, from http://www.acs.edu.au/info/natural-health/mental/social-influences.aspx

Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G., & Jones, J. M. (2014). How Groups Affect Our Health And Well-Being: The Path From Theory To Policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 103-130. doi:10.1111/sipr.2014.8.issue-1

Samari, G. (2016, October 03). Islamophobia is a Public Health Issue, and It Should Be Treated As Such. Retrieved October 04, 2016, from http://news.utexas.edu/2016/10/03/islamophobia-is-a-public-health-issue

Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy. Retrieved October 04, 2016, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150158/

Workplace leaders improve employee wellbeing. (2014, December 17). Retrieved October 04, 2016, from http://phys.org/news/2014-12-workplace-leaders-employee-wellbeing.html

Eliash520 (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, guys I'm interested in this group so please add me your group.

Please add me in your group. Maulik53 (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ucsp

Social groups explanation 2001:4452:314:1400:A998:10BB:B4FF:8AE2 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)