Talk:Collectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search





Dab?[edit]

Would this page be better off as a disambiguation page? It attempts to introduce different uses of the term "collectivism" but they are best covered in their respective articles. The only major area this might miss is something on "the relationship between individualism and collectivism", if that topic has a name. Otherwise, what sources are we using to justify "collectivism" as a separate topic than the specific kinds of applied collectivism? (See also Talk:Collectivism/Archive 3#Loaded term and the bibliography two sections below it.) czar 05:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@CZAR My understanding is that a disambiguation page would be appropriate when the topic has multiple uses-- the example Wikipedia provides is mercury-- which can refer to the mythological god or an element. I'm not sure I understand your comment about there not being a difference between the construct of collectivism and the applied types of collectivism? The only "applied" type that is highlighted is the collectivist anarchist movement. PsychstudentUCLA (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
My comment was written prior to your rewrite, when the article was a series of unconnected sections of applied "collectivism", but the point remains—even as the article currently stands, there is no singular concept of collectivism defined or elaborated throughout the article. Most of the article is mired in jargon and most sections lack any introductory context. But the larger issue is that even as an academic overview, the examples have no collective tissue and little secondary sourcing, making the meaning of any paragraph intelligible. This is written below in other words: the content needs to be fundamentally reorganized to present an encyclopedic concept of "collectivism", but to my original question, I'm not seeing the sourcing that discusses "collectivism" as a separate concept from "individualism and collectivism" (the relationship). czar 17:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not ready for GA[edit]

The prose is currently written like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If Masuda and Nisbett's study is important, you will be able to cite a secondary source that asserts the noteworthiness of their findings, but right now you're using it as a primary source about itself. Use sources secondary to the information given, ideally written by experts who write about the subject in summary for you to paraphrase.

Concepts such as "models of collectivism" and "self-concept" are introduced without any description or context, so it's unclear why they're event relevant to the topic. Remember that our articles are written for a general audience and that all jargon should be replaced or explained as if the reader knew nothing advanced about sociology or history.

All of my original points about the scope of this article pre-expansion remain. The article appears to be more about individualism and collectivism (their relation) rather than an ideologically separate concept of collectivism. You're welcome to prove otherwise with sources, but that requires reliable, secondary refs that say just that. It isn't enough to list several journal articles that address collectivism, but to use higher-level sources that cohere a narrative about those primary sources into a whole. czar 12:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed), haven't heard back from this student. Are you in contact with the instructor or article reviewer? Lots of text was dumped here but not sure any of my original messages were heard nevertheless rectified. Not sure how you usually handle czar 16:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Note to Czar and Ian (Wiki Ed): I have removed PsychstudentUCLA's GA nomination, as it's clear from Czar's comments that this is not ready for GA status and the GA backlog is so great that we don't want to unnecessarily waste time by putting an article up for review that no one is going to take responsibility for—the class was over on December 12, and there are no signs that PsychstudentUCLA will ever return. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset. I noticed that quite a few students from that class nominated their work as GAs, so I asked the instructor if he knew whether the students are planning to come back to follow up (in which case I'd ask people to put any reviews on hold) or whether I should de-list them. I'll follow up, one way or the other. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Collectivism vs Individualism[edit]

"Collectivism is often discussed alongside the cultural value of individualism, but these are two distinct concepts and are not considered to be opposites."

An interesting sentence, unfortunately devoid of any logic. I suggest deletion. NomenNominandum (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the new article is like that. See the talk page sections above this one. czar 02:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There at least could be a citation regarding that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.161.101 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Collectivization VS Enclosure[edit]

Is there any historical interlinks between those two topics?
Excluding that enclosure tends to be more about agriculture ... davronova.a. 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the main definition of collectivism about group rights rather than individual rights?[edit]

In that sense, it is more of a polar opposite to individualism than the intro lets on. I think a simple outlying definition could help, before getting into the semantic details.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collectivism&oldid=923097283"