Page contents not supported in other languages.

IMHO this a aron in its current form is too much like a dictionary entry, because it is about a word rather than about a thing. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chadloder 03:22, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Will someone please tell me what a 'Jizzy concept' is? If nobody can enlighten me, .... 07:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMHO, the page should include a brief on 'social' as understood in anthropological terms. If one were researching the idea 'When did early man become a social being?' or 'What early evidence do we have of early man not being a social species?' I would want Wikipedia to point me to some reference for further research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bhny 2601:153:4081:21E0:70E0:4CC1:C7B1:394 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is "Asocial" redirected here? (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is like a huge, big, verbose disambig page. Needs serious cleanup, and a WikiProject. — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't an article at all. I'm going to redirect it to the disambig page Bhny (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Handling_problems Sometimes, also, a Wikipedia article will be badly named. Its title will be an adjective or an adverb or an inflection of a verb that isn't a noun. [] For example: "supermassive" is an adjective, and doesn't by itself denote an actual subject. “Supermassive black hole” is an actual subject. Bhny (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Social in Manitoba[edit]

Does anyone have sources for these additions? [1]C45207 | Talk 06:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Take a trip to Winnipeg and ask anyone on the street, but here's what I found so far: popo — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like what the hell dude? How do you think sociologists gather research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

#2 looks like a good start. Do you know how to add this to the article?—C45207 | Talk 06:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

piss of yahh arse mate (Y) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Strawberry Socials" are common in Ontario (possibly elsewhere in Canada as well.

Recommend splitting off "Social (event)" or similar and adding a disambiguation page. Flyingsquirrel (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there an origin where the term 'social' comes from? Like whether its latin, greek, etc?

You may want to link to this article: Dolwick, JS. 2009. The 'Social' and Beyond: Introducing Actor-Network Theory at The article examines several theories of the concept 'social' and discusses contemporary meanings. I used it for one of my classes and found it extremely helpful Ralph De (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muddle headed[edit]

In my opinion mergeing "gregarious" into "social" is muddle headed. I agree that the two concepts overlap considerably but their usage means that their focus is distinct, and from that destinction arises value. By mergeing (a Wiki obsession it seems to me) this value is lost.

In my case for instance, I was NOT looking for information about the adjective "Social". I was researching the classification of species and in particular the use, definition, origin etc of the denotion "gregarious" in this regard.

Suggesting that "Social" is some sort of overarching superordinate concept under which the concept "Gregarious" can be subsumed is like removing the denotion "Depression" and mergeing it into "Sadness".

Subsuming "Gregarious" into the relatively trivial/quotidial discourse of "Social" simply dumbs down and muddles the information relating to both. In the end it manifests an ignorance that debases Wikipedia.

LookingGlass (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that social (disambiguation) be merged into social. Both are disambiguation pages. Bhny (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errm, social is not a disambiguation page. olderwiser 16:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Social *is* a disambig in it's meandering extended way. The whole point of the merge is that social isn't an article topic it is a disambig topic. (What do you mean about older ≠ wiser?) Bhny (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I don't think social at present is a disambiguation page. It might qualify as a broad-concept article, but that is a type of article distinct from disambiguation pages in that linking to a broad concept article may be correct -- links to a disambiguation page are never correct (except for the narrow exceptions of intentional dab links. A disambiguation page lists topics that are known by the ambiguous term (i.e., that the topic could reasonably use the ambiguous term as an article title or as a redirect). olderwiser 17:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think an adjective can be a broad concept? I notice all the examples at WP:BROADCONCEPT are nouns. The social article is so thin on anything of interest and scattered in terms of a topic. Bhny (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTDIC adjectives are usually redirected to nouns or are disambiguation pages or simply don't exist
So asking whether this article should exist is a different question from merging with it a disambiguation page. You might want to consider WP:AFD. While most of the topics covered on this page are associated with various concepts of what social means, very few are actually ambiguously referred to by the term social and as such there is very little to "merge" -- in essence, you are proposing to overwrite this page with the current disambiguation page. olderwiser 19:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you support deletion? Bhny (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd have say I'm neutral about it. olderwiser 02:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm looking for some sort of consensus on what is to be done with this mess, so suggestions are welcome. Bhny (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political use[edit]

This idea: "The adjective "social" is also used often in politics, although its meaning in a context depends heavily on who is using it. In left-wing circles it is often used to imply a liberal characteristic, while in right-wing circles it is generally used to imply a conservative characteristic. "

is right in getting at the sheer flexibility of the political use of the word social but it is missing something. In particular, it may have been written from an American point of view in how it uses the word "liberal". In many European and European-influenced Latin or other political systems, "liberal" is still taken to mean classical liberal or neoliberal, and social or social democratic ideas are explicitly contrasted with liberalism. For example, one finds constitutional documents that describe their countries as "democratic and social", by which is implied some kind of commitment to democratic, populist, participatory government and/or maximum franchise, and to stronger responsibility by the political system for social well-being and integration, than was the case in the liberal polities of the early 19c, which could have oligarchic, franchise limiting qualities and limited social spending. That is to say, a leftward tendency in politics explicitly used the word social to describe something more left-wing, more progressive from their point of view and as a contrast to the idea of "liberal".

I submit that to equate social with liberal from a left wing perspective is an insufficiently world wide view and insufficiently historical. One might also consider that even contemporary progressive writing in Europe and the US has at least a generation long tradition of wanting to move beyond the word liberal, so perhaps this historical experience is being replicated.

For consideration by anyone looking to tackle this article. Random noter (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Half of this entry does seem to be about specific political usage of the term, and as Random noter points out, also seems to be from a strongly American POV --Pbmax (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poderias caso queira e possa traduzir esta página? att 2804:14C:5BB1:8FDA:25B6:BAA1:366A:639E (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]