Talk:Society/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Change

Have toned down US_jargon on the business meaning of Society--(talk to)BozMo 13:40, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

This really needs work

Wow. I expected this to need work, since it's a pretty hard and general topic, but boy was I right. It's got a lot of good text and information, but many paragraphs assume meanings of society which are not explained beforehand, and the first paragraph/gloss is far too focused on the social science definition of society. However, this is a wiki, so it can be worked on, so I'm going to do so. Go Wikipedia!

Specifically, I've added a ref to the def of society in the OED, and I'm going to integrate it into the article. The next job I think would be to figure out what other meanings of society are assumed by the article, and write explanations of them, and reorganize the article so the explanations precede their use. Then a ToC would be good, which would involve identifying the general structure of the article. Fun. JesseW 03:16, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just made an edit along those lines. Just to be clear, the underlying sense of the word "society" seems to be a set of people (real individuals or roles) who share some kind of interactions. Every other definition of the word "society", like those on the OED, are just special kinds of that general sort. Lucidish 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

== How about founding a Society portal ==lmao

Most Wikipedia articles on more abstract social issues that I have seen seem to be rather badly written (I haven't really taken a closer look at most of them, though), for example Diversity, Social Class, Religious Pluralism, Tolerance; Poverty could do with some improvement as well. In addition, they seem to be badly linked, everyone just does their bit of things without looking right and left. (This may be an exaggeration; I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia, and especially so to social affairs.)

So I wonder whether one of the problems is that there is actually no place in Wikipedia where to co-ordinate improvement efforts for these issues - couldn't we found a Society portal? I feel it would be needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin.rueth (talk • contribs)

The Society Portal was established in June 2005. Sunray 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Homocentrism

The article is biased and focuses on humans, although that may be good, it is perhaps too much. We need more information about societies among individuals in general, including animals, ie. primates, ants, bees, etc. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point which I am very sympathetic to. Even Aristotle recognized that other animals were social. Lucidish 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many animals are "social" beings. However, considering the definition of "Society" in the article (which is based on well-accepted social science definitions), animals would not live in societies. Communities, yes; societies no. The difference is that societies are large dispersed aggregates sharing a culture and institutions. Communities are groups of individuals sharing an environment, tending to have frequent interactions, and interdependance. Sunray 17:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of article

As this article is one of the core topics of the WP 1.0 Project and has barely progressed beyond removal of a "clean-up" tag, it has a long way to go, I would like to suggest that we reorganize it somewhat so it can be added to and upgraded. Here is a tentative organization of headings:

Origin and usage
Characteristics of society
Social networks
Criteria for membership
Characteristic patterns of organization
Shared belief or common goal
Ontology
See also
Notes
References

Comments? Alternatives? Sunray 06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. It will be important to compare the notion of society to related concepts, i.e., organizations, groups, aggregates, cultures, crowds, and so on. I imagine this would fall under the second category. However, it seems to me also that the second category can be collapsed into the third.

I like the inclusion of "ontology". Lucidish 03:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that we should compare with other collectivities. Also agree about collapsing the 2nd and 3rd sections. The second looks out of place as it is. Sunray 05:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My hope, and worry, is that there actually are conventions in the field about the use of these terms. It would be an excellent first step to make sure that we really are using the word, "society", in a way that is consistent with that in the field. To do that, we should collect a sample of sociological encyclopediae and dictionaries, and see how they match up with respect to all these terms. Lucidish 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I've got the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the Harper Collins Dictionary of Sociology and a couple of recent text books. Can you come up with any others? Sunray 06:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the subheading "Why society?" as I don't think questions are good things to have in an article. I've also removed the part about "abstract". The term "society" is no more abstract than the term "individual" or "people". - FrancisTyers · 13:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

"A society is a self-reproducing grouping of individuals occupying a particular territory, which may have its own distinctive culture and institutions. As culture is generally considered unique to humans, the terms "society" and "human society" have the same meaning. "Society," may refer to a particular people, such as the Nuer, to a nation state, such as Austria, or to a broader cultural group, such as Western society."

Wikipedia is mostly a pretty useful resource, but it lets itself down here: This is an utterly useless definition, and is wrong in a number of respects:

there is no requirement for a society to be "self reproducing" that I know of, and almost no received national societies, let alone contingent ones, on the planet are entirely self reproducing (Tibet may come close);
societies do not neccesarily occupy a particular territory (does Jewish society? Secular society? Internet society?) - territory is completely irrelevant to the concept, as far as I can see
"which may have its own distinctive culture or institutions" is so weak an assertion as to tell us absolutely nothing, since its implication (which is clearly correct) is that societies need not have their own institutions or culture (whatever that might mean), so it does not define them (societies may or may not have their own variety of custard, but that isn't deemed fit for mention)
even if "culture is generally considered unique to humans" (really?) it does NOT follow that "human society" and "society" are the same thing - even by the terms of this very definintion (is Nuer Society = Human Society?)
the last sentence (why single out the Nuer, or the Austrians, by the way?) makes it clear that society has no precise meaning at all.

Why don't suggest a better definition? Because I have no idea what society means either - I don't think many people do - and simply knowing what it ISN'T isn't enough to create a meaningful definition. The best I can say is "a society is a contingent grouping of individuals", but even that would be original research.

Shouldn't this article be moved to wiktionary? ElectricRay 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElectricRay's comments on the definition (not altogther sure about moving to Wiktionary, though admit there is an argument to be made for this).
Can I suggest that anyone who does work on this page consider Runciman's (1963) commentary on why Max Weber's definition of the state (assertion of monopoly on legitimate use of violence) is so useful - it concentrates on what the state claims for itself, not on what the state "is" or what it "does". Trying to define the state in terms of what it "is" or what it "does" leads to functionalist and therefore circular definitions of the state (Social science and political theory. Cambridge [Eng.] University Press, 1963). Similarly, defining 'society' in terms of what it "is", or what it "does" leads one down the same path; one that ends with the proposition that 'society' is what sociologists study and vice versa.
Also one should consider what Andrew Sayer calls the 'double hermeneutic' - terms such as 'society' etc, are coined by social scientists as analytic constructs, but then 'leak out' into everyday discourse, to be used by the lay public to describe, and thereby to define, their own understanding of their context/behaviour (e.g., "that is so anal"). So the term aquires a 'common-sense' definition which may be utterly opposite to that intended by its coiner (e.g., the difference between the 'common-sense' and original Marxist definition of 'ideology' - Sayer, A. 1992. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach, 2nd ed. London: Routledge).
Finally, one might have look at Raymond Williams' (1976, 1983 Fontana) Keywords regarding the history of "society", which also explains "society's" confused/confusing relation with "community", and consider this history alongside the symbolic interactionist argument that 'society' should never be thought of as an 'it' at all, as a thing; but instead thought of as a process.
The issues identified by Runciman, Sayer, and Williams, I would suggest, help account for the shortcomings in the present definition that ElectricRay identifies.
--Paulredfern1 17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural relativism

Under "Evolution of societies", it says: Also, cultural relativism as a widespread approach/ethic has largely replaced notions of "primitive," better/worse, or "progress" in relation to cultures (including their material culture/technology and social organization).

This could be made clearer. In whom have notions of "primitve" etc been replaced? Perhaps in sociologists, and perhaps in the younger generations.. but if a survey of the populace was done, I'm sure a great number of responses would state that their society was "better" than that of others. If it is in fact referring to the general populace, I think some form of evidence for such a bold assertion would be required. 81.104.186.166 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)DHAR3070

article of concern

would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GB not a nation-state!

"a nation state, such as Great Britain,"

But Great Britain is not a state - the UK is.

And anyway, the UK is a multi-national state, containing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A true nation-state would be something like Denmark.

Emmazunz84 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What they said! I'm changing it to Bhutan, an example that's much more obviously a true nation state. --81.158.147.90 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption

The photo cpation "Young people interacting within an ethnically diverse society." is wrong. there is no evidence that they are in an ethnically diverse society. It is just a group of kids who happen to be ethnically diverse. We have no idea what society they are in. (could be a field trip into central China for all we know). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.117.202 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Society is deveresed, unless you are living in medieval times! Igor Berger (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A proposal for a new (and better in my opinion) definition of "Society"

The current definition shown on the article:

"A society is a group of humans characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture and/or institutions."

The definition I propose (after having accepted corrections by Sunray):

"A society is a group of humans that allows individual members to get or reach individual (needed or wished) aims (benefits) that they could not get or reach separately by themselves (that is, without the existence of the group)". --Faustnh (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a reasonable addition. It tells us something about what societies do. However, I would leave the first statement, as it tells us something about what societies are. The two together, make a reasonable definition, IMO.

Corrections to the proposed definition (see history for reasons): "A society is a group of humans that allows individual members to get or reach ~~individual~~ (needed or wished) aims (benefits) that they~~, individual members,~~ could not get or reach separately (that is, without the existence of the group)". Sunray (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This strikes me as both too broad and too narrow. It's too broad because this could be said of any meaningful group. I can't individually accomplish the goals of, say, singing in harmony, cleaning up a littered highway, or passing on my genes; but I can do these things by joining a choir, joining a volunteer club, or getting off the computer and finding a mate, respectively. But choirs, volunteer clubs, and dyads are not societies. And it's too narrow because humans aren't the only social organisms. I'd think a reasonable definition of society would have to account for both the fact that it is a relatively big thing, and the fact that it can comprise relatively small creatures. I'd suggest something like the following: "A society is a group of humans or other organisms of a single species that is delineated by the bounds of cultural identity or of functional interdependence or eusociality." Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and played with the introduction a little bit. Hopefully I've made it a bit stronger. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Cosmic Latte, I was also aware of the facts you mention, but, sincerely, I thought that probably someone here would oppose to take the definition of society to such extents (not my case). I think your add is fine ("be bold").

Additionally, I would like to remark here some more considerations:

"Society" is not merely a "spatial" concept. It has also an obvious "temporal" dimension (let's say it as "generation-to-generation society"), since it's obvious that every society, inherits Progress or Evolution from the previous generations (knowledge, etc); there's an inter-generational cooperation. From this point of view, "society" is less a "phenotypical fact" than a "genotypical fact"; and the individual members could be thought more as a consequence, than a cause, of the society.

Even more: I would also remark that "society", in certain way, has a "biological dimension or projection" ("inter-genotypical dimension"), in the sense that society is not a fact that only happens among the individuals of a certain species, but also among different species, among different genus, among different families, among different classes, etcetera, in the form of (specialized) ecosystem. So, society correlates to a more general principle of "symbiosis" or "mutualism".

But, still, I don't know if something of this should be reflected on the article.

(PS: anyway, I think the sense and position of every society is always the same: to allow or provide its individual members individual benefits they could not achieve without the existence of the society). --Faustnh (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Time for some more minor corrections

Maybe it would be ok to add some new minor corrections. Tell me what you think about the following proposed change:

Current edition (right at the beginning of the article):

"A society is a body of humans generally seen as a community or group of humans - or other organisms of a single species - that is outlined by the bounds of cultural identity, social solidarity, functional interdependence, or eusociality".

A possible re-writing:

"A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality".

--Faustnh (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems there's no initial opposition. I have introduced the change in the article (you can revert it if you don't agree). --Faustnh (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sociology portal and expertise

After numerous changes and conflicting edits, the opening paragraph has been stripped down to a tidy and uncontroversial form, which I think is (as of todays date anyway) very good. The rest of the article, however, is a bit of a mess. I have added the expert request stamp and the sociology sidebar to elicit more help from those in the sociology portal, though the society portal stamp also remains at the bottom of the page. As far as I'm concerned the only way this page is going to become in any way 'of expert standard' is if we (1) get the social science (and even philosophy) portals on board and (2) perhaps put a semi-protection lock on the page, as anyone who's anyone from around the world is currently jamming stuff in arbitrarily!--Tomsega (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tomsega, you've been doing a good job on this but I would appreciate your reactions to my suggestions regarding the definition, etc., below.-Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Oneiros (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead removal

The lead and a couple of tags were removed with this edit. I'm waiting for a response from the editor. Maurreen (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Page requires bold improvement

I don't think it controversial to say that the article is very poor and requires rapid improvement. The addition of the sociology portal bar is at the moment slightly unjustified: there is nothing particularly sociological about this article, and it has not seen much attention from members of the sociology portal. Bearing in mind how poor the article is, I feel slightly embarrassed (as a sociologist) that the soc portal has been attributed to it, as would any anthropologist no doubt be if the anthropology portal had been chosen instead. A dozen other social sciences and humanities could also have an input.

Typically the question "What is society" stumps any student of social science. It's such an open and vague question.. it might seem the article should either be about two sentences long or practically never-ending. Regardless.. we should be doing better. Can anyone think of some ideas? I'll be back for an overhaul shortly. I'll add the anthropology sidebar for the time being. --Tomsega (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken some action so a focus can be brought on the central section. This want's to be a nice bit of expository prose, reworking what's there now but with an emphasis on linking the many categories and articles that fan out from this concept. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

i.e. more like the last §. A good lede, an expository § linking others like the third does now ( the non-central connotations ), seems to be the course arrived at for the overall article structure. The Expository section should concentrate on the core concept from the perspective of Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove picture in lead

I've never seen another article with a picture in the lead. I'd like to remove it. Does anyone think it should stay or be moved somewhere? Otherwise I'll remove it. On that note I move the table of contents out of the section on conceptions of society's. That was just silly. meitme (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are both your opinion, the picture was not placed by me but I think it highly appropriate. I did put the TOC in a place where it is both aesthetically more regular and consistent with the requested rework of the article which I began. Of course there are other placements that would work but that one didn't, it just looked like a clumsy or botched edit. If you want to improve the article you have to put more time into it than that, just moving that one element without adjusting the overall flow of content was a failure. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations in lead section

From WP:LEADCITE:

"there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Editor2020 (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

More on definition and scope

I have read with interest the discussions in this connection. It seems to me, however, that the article may be suffering from lack of attention to one of the key meanings of society, that of the mass noun or, as Wiktionary has it: "The people of one’s country or community taken as a whole". This surely must be one of the most important aspects to document in Wikipedia. Perhaps it warrants an article in its own right (Human society???) where the origins and developments of society are described with sections on agrarian society, pre-industrial society, industrial society, post-industrial society, etc., as well as on global movements such as western society, communist society, consumer society, information society, global society... The danger at the moment is that the article is overly concerned with societies of various kinds (cf. associations) rather than the development of human society in general. At the very least I would strongly argue that the definition should be altered to specify clearly the meaning of society when it refers to human society in general.- Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newbie, and society is one of my research interests, and I agree with the comment above, from way back in 2009, about "society" as a mass noun. There is a huge difference between and article on "society" and an article on "societies." I have just made a similar comment on the Talk Page for the Society Outline, where we have a section entitled "What Type of Thing is a Society," when most outlines would not have that indirect article in that formulation.--Mhbroder (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have done a fair amount of editing here over the past few days. I hope others will come forward to contribute, perhaps especially to develop information about modern society. It would also be interesting to have a section on the use of the term to describe the social elite (sometimes referred to as high society) and how this concept has developed since the 19th century.- Ipigott (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with your fundamental criticisms. 'Societies' like 'the society of friends' (!!) shouldn't be on a page dedicated to society, and should be moved to their own (if there isn't already a page dedicated to these sorts of parties). I rather regret adding the page to the sociology portal, seeing as it is such a broad word and general topic that it will be almost impossible to form a coherent social scientific page with the number of arbitrary and haphazard editors. --Tomsega (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Virtual versus Social Territory

Currently begins:

"A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory,"

The word "virtual" is technically correct, as in "real vs. virtual", but without being balanced by the word "real", just sounds odd. I'm going to change the word to "social" as that seems to balance better against the word "geographical". Feel free to revert it if you also explain why it was better the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelyaware (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, prolly an edit made by somebody born after 1990. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation

There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice and request for participation

There is ~~an RfC~~ a Requested move in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated:

Talk:Assault weapons legislation#Requested move

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was an RfC, but I realized this is the appropriate process. Lightbreather (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New section on structure

I think Hendrik 99 deserves yeoman's work on explaining Marxist social structure. While I think this article is currently lacks a strong discussion the classical sociological theories of society, I'm not sure an extended discussion the Marxist school belongs here, because it privileges one school of thought above all others. Can anyone suggest a better home for this content, perhaps at Marxist sociology? Nickknack00 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

After a search, it looks as though the section is mostly copied from base and superstructure. In light of this, I suggest the section be removed here and left to discussion there. Nickknack00 (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Poles in mythology

Now we have a new article Poles in mythology, Please see and include suitable improvements , if any, in article Poles in mythology.

Rgds Mahitgar (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wolves image

Regarding this: is this an article on the general concept of "society" even as it applies to non-sapient species, or specifically about human society as the lede suggests? If the latter, that edit should be undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a question of article scope, which guessing from the above sections is a recurring question. If there is no other place to discuss non-human societies, it would make sense to include that info on this page and have the lead clarify the scope like some of the proposals I see above. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Would the article about social animals be relevant? Perhaps a link to that article should be placed on this article as a disambiguation hatnote (since this article is mainly about human society, and the societies of other animals seem to be outside its scope). Jarble (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, if this article is going to discuss human societies exclusively, then the content about other social animals might need to be moved to the social animal article. Jarble (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood Better VenomSubaS (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

BushmenSan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Difference between society, social class and social structure

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Society,_social_class,_social_structure_of_Foo_country_-_separate_or_same_topics?. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2020 and 11 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Raymond Heredia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of the society

The definition of the society is not clear. It should be defined in a broader sense. It may be, for example, just a small group of people with unknown objectives and interests. We do not know how many people should be in a group of perople to call that group a socienty. The terminology for society in the article should be better defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research4good (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Society/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. This is a tricky article to get right, so forgive me if it takes a few days to get started - I have to do some background research to assess comprehensiveness and the sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Of the universe, I noticed you've been less active recently. Can you confirm that you are available and have time to fix issues arising from the review, such as the sourcing issues below? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Yes, I do! Thanks so much for the time and effort. I'll work on it soon. Of the universe (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Great! Will go over the rest of the sourcing issues and some other notes today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811, FYI I've come down with COVID so I may be slow to work on this for the next week or so. Of the universe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, feel better! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Of the universe That's a bummer. I hope you'll be alright and get well. — Alex26337 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I added more information on Reference 66, and I shortened the quote to include only what's essential to the article sentence its reffering to. - Alex26337 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for helping out! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I also fixed the issue for Reference 69 (I'm just doing what I can to help). I'll note anything else I fix if/when I continue. - Alex26337 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I improved References 37-39 (And additionally, reference 40). - Alex26337 (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Question: If the problems noted down have been resolved, are you going to remove them from the list (or a better idea, ~~strikethrough~~ the problems so there is a record of what was a problem)? - Alex26337 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to strike them through yourself as you resolve them, or just use ":*" to reply to each comment as you fix them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we're getting very close on sourcing - thank you for all your hard work, @Alex26337. Once we've wrapped that up, the onus goes back on me to do a final comprehensiveness and prose check, and then I think we'll just about be there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have hesitated to make a comment about this review, being occupied with other matters which will likely prevent me giving this the attention it deserves. However, the issue of cultural bias impacts this article significantly, as it likely does all social science articles. The basic outline of the topic is firmly in the mainstream Western tradition of sociology, beginning with the three theoretical orientations (not really "paradigms") used to define society. While Sociology 101 classes may continue to begin by teaching the 19th century Western canon of Durkhiem, Marx, G.H. Mead and Weber, a WP article should find a way to acknowledge from the beginning that these conceptions have excluded other perspectives.^[1] Similarly the types of societies should not be limited to definitions based upon levels of technology; pre-industrial, industrial, and post-industrial, which are also rooted in a 19th century Western POV. - WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful comment - I will consider it as I assess comprehensiveness. Beyond the Alatas piece below, do you have any other recommended works that describe or outline these other perspectives? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Alright, after at least a week, I finished the remaining reference-related tasks. Additionally, I went over and properly formatted all the references, sources, and further readings as I worked on this article. It feels really amazing to help promote this article to the GA-class, especially because of three things: (1): this is my first time doing something at this extent, (2): this is a

Level-1 Vital article, and (3): as of now, I'm less than 50 edits away from Extended-confirmed status. I know there's still that one task with expanding the Industrial society section, so I'll try to look into that. Although, while I have been trying to get at least one task done per day, school is about to resume, so I may be working less frequently. As usual, if there are any issues regarding this article's references, fell free to tell me; and thanks or noticing my contributions! — Alex26337 (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You've done remarkable work! We're very close to GA status now. Thanks for your contributions so far. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, I have a concern regarding me helping out on this article. I realized that, for this article's remaining tasks, its been hard to keep my mind on them and formulate a proper solution, because I'm not good at expanding articles as I am improving maintenance tasks and information connected to and regarding references. To me it seems the pressure to keep up with this article is increasing, and I don't want to abandon this article that's very close to being promoted. This brings me to two things I want to say - (1): To @Of the universe, I want to personally thank you for expanding the industry section, since that's been on my mind for awhile. I'd recommend listing your completed task in the table below. (I'd do it myself, but I want you to take the credit). (2): To @Ganesha811, is there a place where I can ask other editors to help with the remaining tasks for this page? I don't want to bear this guilt of not being able to help with everything. - I'll still keep watch on the article and this nomination page, and if the oppurtunity presents itself, I'll continue to help out. — Alex26337 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work! I'm sorry I haven't been able to help more myself. I'm still planning on expanding the Industrial section more before I mark it finished. — Of the universe (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No guilt required! Wikipedia is a hobby, not a job, and you're under no obligation to do more here, especially as you weren't the original nominator. Just take a break and help out whenever you feel like it. But don't feel required to find a replacement or feel any guilt, Wikipedia should be fun. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Of the universe: it would be great to wrap up this review in the next week, given it's been open since the beginning of the month. Do you have the availability/time to make the remaining changes/adjustments over the next seven days? I think we're very close and can definitely get to GA here. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganesha811 I will try my best! I am feeling better but now behind at work due to COVID. I really appreciate your in depth review, and I wish I had been able to be more responsive. This is my first time having my wikipedia editing substantially reviewed, so it has been a very valuable experience for me. I think I'll have more time to finish things up after tomorrow. Of the universe (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok! I'm not strict on 7 days, but let's say we'll give ourselves until the end of the month. At that point, if we're not finished, I'll have to close the review. Hopefully won't be an issue. I'm glad you're feeling better! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we just need one more thing under 'Coverage', I'll do a final prose check, and we're all set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congratulations to the two nominators here, who both contributed a great deal, and to all others who worked on the article. I'll promote it now! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Adam Smith quote is interesting, but a bit oddly placed. Three options: it could be worked into the text elsewhere, it could be expanded into part of a paragraph about historical conceptions of the meaning of 'society', or it could simply be removed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Removed: First I went on a quote hunt to try to make this a paragraph, but I kept finding quotes on sociology (not society), which was a specific I didn't want to include in this section. Then I tried to fit this quote to another location in the article, but I couldn't find a match between the quote and the other section's specific topics. So after an extended period of time, thought, and searching, I decided to remove the quote from the Etymology section until further notice. — Alex26337 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC) There are a lot of WP:DUPLINKS - I recommend installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which will provide a handy tool to highlight them, making them much easier to find and remove. Generally, once in the lead and once in the body is sufficient, with some reasonable exceptions where you think a new link is necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Resolved: Using the duplinks-alt code, I removed all duplicate links I found except for the one for social constructionism, because I feel that its duplicate is far enough from the original to be kept in the article. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Made final prose tweaks. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	This section is currently uncited: "Larger food supplies due to improved technology mean agrarian.... directly participate in the production of food." Resolved: Added a citation for this group of unreferenced sentences (Lenski & Lenski 1987). — Alex26337 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC) No uncited passages, citations are accurately placed and given page numbers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I don't think the Online Etymology Dictionary is a reliable source, per previous discussions at WP:RSN. Resolved Fixed! (replaced source where possible, removed info i could not verify. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Smithsonian Magazine isn't an author of the Angier source.) Resolved fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Link Jack Goody in citation. Resolved fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Lumen Learning does not appear to be a reliable source. Resolved removed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) No need for birth/death years in Macionis citation. Also, Gerber appears to be a co-author to Macionis. Resolved both fixed! Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) What is the function of the 'See Also' in cite 29 (Sahlins)? Resolved The purpose was to show similar analyses by other authors. I added it into the text and separated them out. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Re: Cite #30 (Sackett) see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Can we regard this dissertation as reliable? Resolved Removed it and replaced it with Sahlins estimate --- this section may need to be balanced with critique of the original affluent society. Of the universe (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Agreed, a sentence of well-cited critique would be appropriate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Cites #37, 38, 39 could all use more detail, such as ISBNs and publishers (Langlois, Brown, Lenski) Resolved — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #46 (UK commons) is a weird citation for this simple fact, and would be better replaced by something published by a specific author, or at a minimum archived. Resolved found better source. Of the universe (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #47 (Soll) again seems like an odd choice for this information. What is the page # where Soll discusses the relevant info? Replaced: I couldn't find the page holding the relevant info, so I replaced the citation with a new one (Beniger). The page numbers listed (pp. 21–22) source the direct information, while the pages' section expands on relevant information. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #48 (Canvas) is unreliable and should be replaced. Y Replaced: Replaced (Canvas) citation with a new one (Mattelart). The pages listed in the citation (pp. 99–158) feature two chapters that go into the appropriate information. — Alex26337 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #49 (Indiana University) doesn't appear to contain the information it's used to cite directly, it's a fairly generic description page. Replace with a better source. Y Replaced with a new citation (Lyon). — Alex26337 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #50 isn't terrible, but the paragraph it's used to support is not well-placed in the article. Why should we mention the EU specifically in a very high-level article on society as a whole? Removed: After thinking about it for a while, I decided to remove the paragraph and citation about the EU. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Cite #53 (Ireland) is odd. The source as a whole seems mostly reliable, but the specific statistic is given in a "Chairman's Foreword" that may not have been fact checked. It also hedges by saying "now estimated to be" but does not provide a citation or any information about who estimated this. Without a better source (showing how the calculation was made), this sentence and source should be removed. Removed: I looked into this source, and although I found this data referenced, I was unable to find such reference (or a matching one). As a result, I decided to remove the sentence and citation. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Stopping here for now. For this article sourcing is key and there are definitely some issues! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC) #63 (Palomar) does not appear to be reliable. Replaced: I replaced (Palomar) with a new citation (Gillespie). — Alex26337 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC) The quote included in #66 can be shortened - additionally, the author's name appears to be Peoples, not People, and both co-authors can be given full first names. The first name issue also occurs in other citations - where available, there's no need to abbreviate to a single letter. Resolved — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #69 (Blackmore) comes from National Geographic and should be identified as such. Done — Alex26337 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC) The LiveScience.com source does not appear particularly reliable - replace. Y Replaced with a new citation (Harrison). — Alex26337 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) #76 (Christian) could use a page number. Please check this in other citations as well. Resolved: Added page number, the quote to compliment the referenced sentence, and additional information. — Alex26337 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC) #77 should probably be given as an attributed opinion in text, such as adding "according to The Economist." Resolved: I noted attribution from The Economist in the sentence. Additionally, I updated the percentage statistics so they match to the source (albeit rounded up to the ones place). — Alex26337 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC) #79 (NatGeo international organizations) doesn't contain the number of UN members given in text (193) - need a second source or just replace this one entirely. Resolved: I added a second source to account for the number of UN members. (Mingst, Karns, & Lyon 2022) — Alex26337 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Seems like #81 (Wyoming) should be replaced and specified to the actual journal article, not a press release about it. Y Replaced with its sourced journal article (Horan, Bulte, & Shogren 2005). — Alex26337 (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Ditto for #82. This is the iNews source, for clarity. The actual academic studies would be a big improvement here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Y Replaced: I couldn't find the specific citation the iNews article was referencing, so I found one that matched the referenced sentence's information and replaced the iNews reference with that. (Gosch & Stearns 2008) — Alex26337 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC) #85 (history of money) would probably be better replaced by academic sources re: cattle & cowries. Y Replaced with three new citations. [(Semenova), (Yang), (Middelkoop)] — Alex26337 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not convinced that Middelkoop is as reliable as we would want - seems to have a very particular axe to grind about the dollar/gold financial system. Would prefer removal (if adequately covered by Semenova and Yang) or replacement with a better source. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Yg Replaced: Alright, I replaced (Middelkoop) with two new references; in terms of the sentence, the first citation (Chown) goes in depth with the history of coin and paper money, while the second citation (Evans) goes into electronic money using the history of credit cards. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC) #87 (inequality delusion) is a bit of a cherry-picked statistic - a broader measure of inequality or example of wealth divisions might be more useful. Y Replaced: I replaced the citation with a new one (Zucman 2019) and rewrote the referenced sentence. — Alex26337 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC) #27, from primitivism.com, seems to just be a reprint of a Sahlins paper - is it identical to #26? Either way, a citation to the original publication location would be preferred. Implemented: I added the citation information for the privitism reference (Stone Age Economics), along with the direct page and quote to support it. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Note: When I compared the Stone Age Economics (SAE) reference to the Man the Hunter (MH) reference, they were similar in terms of authorship, title, and a certain graph that's supportive to the sentence they're referencing. The only difference is, SAE seems to go more in depth with the topic, so I'm not sure if we should delete the MH reference. — Alex26337 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC) I think it's ok to keep them both, no doubt Sahlins borrowed some of his own work, but that's not an issue for us here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Given that Asa Briggs is now used just once, it can be moved up from 'Sources' into 'Citations' Done — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Ditto for Bulliet et al. and Langlois. Done — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Is Lenski 1966 / 1984 used in the article at all now? If not, it can be moved to 'Further Reading'. Resolved: I moved the source into 'Further Reading' — Alex26337 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC) Some of the 'Further Reading' selections are only tenuously related or simply insignificant. Dunfey, Larrain, Harvey, Harman, Hall, and Althusser seem particularly egregious. It feels more like a reading list associated with Das Kapital than with society as a whole. Marx was a foundational sociologist, but given that he only gets two sentences in the prose (as appropriate for such a broad article), the reading list does not need to be so focused on his work. Removed: @Ganesha811 After looking at the references you pointed out for myself, along with other references regarding Marx, I noticed and agree on what you mean, noticing their heavy focus on Marx rather than Society (this article's main topic), so I removed them. Although, I only kept one reference regarding Marx (Postone) so the "Further Reading" section doesn't lean too much on him, and because in terms of the information already present in the article, it seems appropriate enough to keep. I hope this is OK, and if what I did concerns you, please let me know. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed after a thorough effort by the two nominators! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing egregious, but it definitely can't assess all the sources properly - hold for manual check. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC) "much more recently than that" from Ferguson is a borrowed phrase and should be modified. Resolved Of the universe (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Manual check finds nothing of concern. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	First comment - the 'industrial society' section can be expanded to at least twice its size - its paucity compared to those which precede and follow it is noticeable. Issue addressed. A sentence or two of criticism or explication of Sahlins' hypothesis is also worth adding. Done: I added a sentence to balance the preceding one. Although, the sentence may need to be reworded to make reading the respective paragraph more comfortable; just check that for me, ok? — Alex26337 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Issue addressed. I do think, per WriterArtistDC's comment above, a few sentences focused on non-Western perspectives of society (whether pre-modern or modern) would be worth adding, perhaps under 'Conceptions' Not yet done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Done Of the universe (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Issues addressed. Pass. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Other than EU detail noted above, no areas of significant overdetail. Assuming that will be handled, provisional pass. Y Addressed: I handled the EU Issue above. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments under 'Coverage' above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues on talk page; the definition of society query is appropriately addressed in text/sources. No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:ONU Geneva mainroom.jpg is not public domain, so please double-check that it is labeled appropriately according to the license terms - a truly PD image might be better if a suitable replacement is available. Verified: I checked on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and it shows the file under the CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0, and GNU 1.2 licenses. If you find the picture under Public Domain elsewhere, please let me know. — Alex26337 (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Issue discussed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of wolves/bison is superfluous to the image of ants, which are mentioned (appropriately) in the text. Removed: I removed the wolf/bison image. — Alex26337 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC) The Silk Road image could be removed - it's unsourced. If there's a better available image of trade/economics, that could be swapped in. Question: @Ganesha811 In terms of the Silk Road picture, I found this similar image that, unlike the first, has a license (CC-BY-SA 4.0) and is SVG formatted. However, although the routes shown in the new image match the first one, I don't know if its a good enough depiction of the Society article's Trade and Economics section. I thought of including the fact of the "spice trade routes overlapping the other caravan routes" in the image's description (since the spice trade routes are mentioned in the section and current image), but I'm concerned the picture won't be able to represent this completely (partly because of the "Silk Road" title box). Before deciding to replace the current image, I want to know your opinion in terms of the new image I found. — Alex26337 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Tracing back the data source there, it seems reasonably laid out, and it's certainly a high quality image. I'd swap it in, with a caption along the lines of "The Silk Road was used for long-distance trade of spices along caravan and ocean routes" - definitely do improve my phrasing, though! Thanks for finding the alternative. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Y Replaced: Alright, I replaced the picture. — Alex26337 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

References

^ Alatas, Syed Farid (2021). "Deparochialising the Canon: The Case of Sociological Theory". Journal of Historical Sociology. 34 (1): 13–27. doi:10.1111/johs.12314. ISSN 1467-6443. Retrieved 2023-12-28.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

role of society in health development

role of society in health development 2409:40F4:102A:D1C7:9476:64FF:FE33:6F0C (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Information and knowledge societies

How widely accepted among academics is the difference between information society and knowledge society? It seems to me like knowledge society may be a sort of subtaxonomy of information society, and that as such discussion of it may belong in the same subsection rather than a distinct one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's right. I was maybe too hesitant to change that aspect of the article earlier. Of the universe (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

[1] Alatas, Syed Farid (2021). "Deparochialising the Canon: The Case of Sociological Theory". Journal of Historical Sociology. 34 (1): 13–27. doi:10.1111/johs.12314. ISSN 1467-6443. Retrieved 2023-12-28.

[1]