Talk:Social issue

the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Sociology Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2013. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

Archives

Archive 1

They are, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda's sociology book, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. and Donileen R. Loseke's Thinking about social problems: an introduction to constructionist perspectives.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Global issue" seems more informal, and seems pretty much like a more specialized (globalization-related) type of social issue/problem. But since globalization is a very broad term, I doubt there is any meaningful difference between those two topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Global issue be focused on describing historical and present efforts by notable authorities on the most important social issues for the world. On the other hand, I suggest that Social issue be focused on social issues as sociological phenomena, with research on how problems come to be identified and defined as social issues through media and public discourse, and means of categorizing and distinguishing them. See my related proposal below. Daask (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Daask: Which issue is global and not social? Opposite of global is strictly local. I don't think separating those topic would help much. What could exist in global issues articles that wouldn't also exist here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Global issue to Most important global issues. Daask (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Anything that starts Most important...... begs the question, most important to whom ? Articles that incorporate value judgements in their title always appear to be flawed in their logic and are difficult to construct without bias and POV. Best of luck with your endeavours.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

ISBN 978-1-4185-7312-6. I don't know Wikipedia policy or guidelines on such articles, but I think they can be valuable. Daask (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Having some sort of starting point is good, provided that there is consensus about what that starting point should be. I cannot imagine that much support would gather around McLaren's work however. It might be simpler starting with a

WP:MEDRS but for social issues. Some time ago I suggested, on this page, that the article should be deleted because it was simply a home for anyone's pet hates and bigotry. To be recreated, it will need a much more robust platform to start from. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

"Most important" is indeed a terrible idea per reasons stated above (editorializing). We can have a list of social issues, without judging which is major and which is not; Wikipedia policy requires verifiability, after all (see

WP:NOR). Regarding the US issues, this is also discussed above and I think a simple split would be a simple solution. My point is, as was before, that there is no need for us to have a separate article on global vs social. We can have separate lists of social issues by country/scope etc., but the theoretical concept of social issue is only one, and global issue is just a poor synonym or worse, a useless catchphrase and should not exist outside a redirect here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

socioeconomy). Not sure what agricultural personal issues would be; of course a discussion of which type of fertilizer is better (which seems to be a purely agricultural issue) but not be a sociological issue, but at the same time I doubt the very concept of such agricultural issues would be notable at all. Social issues are notable because the very term is often used in social sciences; there is an entire book series called "Encyclopedia of Social Issues" which would make a great source for this, there are plenty of definitions we could cite ([1], [2]), the term has over million hits on Google books [3], compare to agricultural issues which gets 50k and as a term is unlikely to be defined anywhere). So I certainly think this term is correct and notable (even if the article is currently a poor, half-OR mess). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Piotrus: strong oppose. The core issues go far beyond the fuzzy social realm. They affect us and our environment. Severely. Overpopulation - the central source of all the problems - is nothing that you earnestly wanted to discuss in social science context only. We are not talking about "felt" or "perceived" or "relative" problems. They are absolute and will eventually affect all life on the entire planet. -- Kku (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of the majority of this article, namely the

I don't see what's the problem with the type of social issues as far as NPOV goes, through I understand the OR issue. I support deletion of the sections which don't cite a source that clearly calls them a social issue. I support your idea of what this article should be about, but I don't see what's wrong with having a typology of social problems here (if it can be reliably referenced). As for the by country, this is your usual variety of 'US is the world' type section, and it can be dealt with in the usual issue - splitting it off to

WP:AFD for it following the split. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

NPOV

:

1. It is very difficult to briefly summarize a social issue with a NPOV. Disagreements on social issues tend to be rooted in disagreements in how to frame and understand the issue itself. It is hard enough to come to good consensus wording in the articles focused on contentious topics; I doubt Wikipedia can do a good job in a little-noticed page like this.
2. As I hope to expand on in this article at some point, social problems are identified by moral entrepreneurs, who work hard to bring their concerns into public debate and make them social issues. The list of social issues could be as long as the list of things people disagree about. They become social issues as they garner public attention, and there's no definite threshold for inclusion/exclusion from a list of social issues.
3. We can easily pick any issue we think are important and fine scholars in scholarly journals who identify them as social issues; they probably study them because they think their issue is important and worthy of attention. Poverty scholars are not reliable sources on whether poverty should be considered a social issue.

I would support inclusion of lists of the most contentious issues in particular places provided by sociologists or political analysts based on surveys or some such, but support none of the current content. Daask (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think the simplest solution would be to split of the US section to a separate article; if you think it's bad content it would be easy to AfD it then, right? We can fix this piece by piece. See how I cleaned up Globalization (see the article's talk page). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged

Capitals00 (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Social issues in the United States. In other words, would you consider self-reverting your recent merge? Daask (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that it would be better to remove the countries from here and we really don't have to split these sections into new articles. "A social issue is a problem that influences a considerable number of the individuals within a skibidi toilet", says the article. While you said "It is very difficult to briefly summarize a social issue with a NPOV. Disagreements on social issues tend to be rooted in disagreements in how to frame and understand the issue itself. It is hard enough to come to good consensus wording in the articles focused on contentious topics", and yes that is the issue. These 2 articles that I merged, were full of NPOV violations and original researches, also written badly. One person removes content they don't like and other one inserts their personal problem as fact.. I thought that it would be easier to manage these articles by putting them at this place,

Capitals00 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Capitals00 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Capitals00: Not a bad idea since at least it keeps content in one sigma. Through a well-written summary article would be fine, too, but as you say - currently those articles are not well written. Honestly, looking at those sections I don't think deleting them outright would be bad, and turning them into disambigs is more useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Including several topics found in "Other issues" under topics in "Types" would better organize these issues. For instance, "Education and public schools" (of "Types") can include the "Other issues" topics of "education,"lack of literacy and numeracy," "school truancy," and "violence and bullying in school." Moreover, the title of the "Education and public schools" topic within "Types" should be edited to solely "Education," given that these topics are also apparent in private schools. There are other connections that can be made between the various topics under "Other issues" and "Types." I simply provided these examples.Rbatista18 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure yet which article among the

Listed: at WT:WikiProject Sociology, WT:WikiProject History, WT:WikiProject Germany. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I'm a little unclear what you are looking for. It seems you are looking for an article whose scope contains both War guilt question and German collective guilt. From your further discussion, it sounds like you want a history of nationalism and anti-nationalism in Germany. Vergangenheitsbewältigung strikes me as the closest article you haven't mentioned. However, then you branch out into a discussion of societal guilt in general. Perhaps you want to expand social science article collective responsibility to discuss this concept in theory rather than discussing Germany in particular? In any case, can you be more precise what you feel is lacking from our existing articles? Daask (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time, but I guess I was referring to a response to the title, and the clarifying

WP:LEADSENTENCE

, which states:

• A social issue is a problem that affects many people within a society.

So it seems like the question of societal guilt is a question which fits the title and that definition, which could have an entire section devoted to it. And yet, the term guilt does not appear in the article at all (except in connection with drink-driving, which is not what this is about). And it seems like it should have content about it. It looks like from my previous comment that I had some concerns about which article would be the best host for such content, but I don't see why it shouldn't be here. Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main tenet of sociology is that we should be able understand personal issues in light of the structural and historical factors that contribute to them, and vice versa. For any personal issue, C. Wright Mills would have us consider where and when the personal issue has arisen, and then ask three questions: (1) What is the structure of this particular society as a whole? (2) Where does this society stand in human history? and (3) What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society and in this period? These questions help identify the sources of what seem like personal issues in the social conditions that give rise to them. IvyKen (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2024 and 17 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Casscake (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sky1405.

— Assignment last updated by Sky1405 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]