# Talk:Social identity theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ywrhea.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

what is the difference between virtual social identity and actual social identity?
If you actually bothered to read the tajfel article you will notice that categorization and identity are minimal supplementary aspects of his argument.
Belonging to groups dose not increase self-esteem
Positive distinctiveness by comparison to a similar out-groups on valued characteristics does
It is not “subsumed” by creativity; creativity is one aspect of the comparison process. If you’re going to write an entry on a subject, at least read the article 
“Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C (1979) an integrative theory of Intergroup conflict

would like more specific information on what constitutes a persons identity and details about the mental and physical development of an adolescent...? thanks
This is not a help forum, you might want to try elsewhere. Nick 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content on this page seems to be lifted verbatim from this URL: http://psychology.anu.edu.au/groups/categorisation/socialidentity.php There is a link to this page at the bottom of the article, but I'm fairly certain this is not justification to copy and paste the author's work. The ANU page does not make it clear what book the sample chapters are from, but after some digging I found out it is from Categorization in Social Psychology by Craig McGarthy. SAGE, 1999. InfinityDUCK 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is this : "social identity is my identity wich you don't need so ha...ha...ha..."
Posting a rewritten entry.  The website where content was lifted from is no longer up to compare against, so for a course assignment, we rewrote.  Tabularasasm (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged with Collective identity? --64.50.95.2 (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 
I should like to make the same proposal, but in the specific sense to simply eliminate the article called "collective identity" and to refer in the one on "social identity" that some people (mostly outside the scholarly community) speak of "collective identity" to talk in a less differentiated way awbout the same thing. 193.136.189.1 (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This article discusses "Social Identity Theory" an important specific theory that has inspired a line of Social Psychology research that is very influential.
While it relates to Collective identity, it is a theory, while Collective identity is a general concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.91 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 
I agree.  this is a distinct theory. tag removed.  Earlypsychosis (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it has been a while since this discussion, but the handling of collective identity vs. social identity needs some work. I have had a look at the collective identity page and think that if the page gets neglected then I foresee that all sorts of mediocre work will be dumped in there (Check out recent addition of pop evolutionary theory as an example). I also note that this page title is still "social identity" rather than "social identity theory", which isn't really congruent with the above discussion. My current thoughts are that the collective identity page should include a more robust definition, and then a clear link to social identity theory. The hope would be that anyone who is seriously interested in collective identities will see social identity theory as an obvious next port of call. Hmmm, I wonder how you change the title of a page. Andrew (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very much a sofixit- what is wrong with the article a few changes of terms won't fix, even then it seems sophistry to a simple person like me. Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

I think this should be moved - and renamed to Social identity theory  Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

-Possible complete rewrite of the article (previous comment  on talk had mentioned an issue of the lifting large portions of material from another website, which is no longer currently active to check: http://psychology.anu.edu.au/groups/categorisation/socialidentity.php).
-The organization of current article makes little sense.  The intro section, titled “social identity” goes into too much detail. The list below the first paragraph really shouldn't be there and does not fit in with the rest of that section at all.  The first header after the intro makes the article seem like it should be a general social psychology topic, instead of focusing on one group of theories.  There are sections on other theories.  Basically, past work on this article created a very rudimentary social psychology article instead of an article focusing on social identity.  A better article would, if there's really need to list these other theories, attempt to link to other pages.
-The overall organization of the article seems rather confusing especially starting from the section named “Social psychology theories”. Some of the theories are not actually all theories, but some are models. Therefore we need to rename the section, change the contents of it, or create two separate sections. Lastly the individual sections within the listed theories look like sections of their own rather than part of a theory. For example, the parts named identities, group distinctness, and low status groups under the theory of social identity theory is highly confusing as if they are their own theory rather than used to explain another theory.
- Add more real-world examples, so there are more than just slight connections to economics or alternatively, to just remove that material.
Jfwang (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article's been recently updated to address concerns of plagiarism and to provide a more thorough/more heavily cited entry on the topic.  Does anyone have any strong feelings about summing up the state of social psychology section to a one-liner in the Development of Tajfel's theory section?  It's been suggested that we remove the Historical background of social identity theory section and just add the line, "The social identity theory was an attempt to reestablish a more collectivist approach to social psychology of the self and social groups" Tabularasasm (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. In an attempt to break down the theory into something a bit more digestible to a layman, and set the page up so that is more reflective of the original statements of the theory, much of the “development” content was made redundant. This has abbreviated this section somewhat. I also truncated the historical context content as I believed it was too in-depth for a page designed to be an encyclopaedic account of SIT. I think such content really belongs on the social psychology page, or as a page unto itself. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This article, if aiming for GA+ level, needs an increased density of references. One per para is not enough, as content on a wiki can be moved, or added. Each sentence should have its own reference. Once this happens, I think this article would fulfill B-class requirements, at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this text out of the article for now because it is not written in understandable English. I've tried to paraphrase it to make sense, but it needs to be out of the article for now.
While this macro-economic theory deals exclusively with already well-established categories of social identity, Laszlo Garaiapplied the concept of social identity to economic psychology takes into consideration identitiesin statu nascendi. A further feature of Garai's theory is that he presented a complementary theory on an inter-individual mechanism the inter-individual phenomena studied by the social psychology may be accorded to. The theory that is referred to the macro-processes based on a large-scale production later has been applied by L. Garai to individual psychology.

MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Andrew (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social identity/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Few quibbles: 1) "Some believe this separation between" - who? 2) is John C. Turner in lead the same person as the unlinked John Turner mentioned later? 3) what are category representative? 3) what's the difference between "social identity" and "social identity theory" (redirecting here)? If there is none, the lead should say something like social identity (also known as social identity theory). 4) what is "perceptual research" (second "what is" question - jargon warning) 5) quickly followed by perceptual accentuation effect (what is...) 6) what is social perception? 7) what is social category (some of those may be just linked... see below). 7) "he found that by merely assigning participants into groups can result in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination" - grammar? unnecessary "by"? 8) "monetary amount" - wouldn't "monetary reward" be better English?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  1) insufficient density of internal links; from the first section, the following terms should be interlinked: social psychology, collective phenomena, William James, interpersonal interactions, symbolic interaction, collectivist perspective, individualist approach (some of those may be piped, some may be red); the article is long enough that if something was linked in lead (ex. Henri Tajfel), it should be linked again in the body; I could go on to the second para ("justification, causal attribution, and social differentiation") but I hope it is clear what the problem here is 2) the article shows prejudice against red links; those should be added where needed. A good example is the The Group Mind book - it seems notable enough for somebody to write an article on it 3) in some cases, ilinks should be moved, for example, sociology is linked not on its first, but second appearance in text

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  See below

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  As I wrote above, I find citation density unsatisfactory. Please improve it to one-per-sentence.

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: }

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 Not really. There is scope to add more images, illustrating thinkers and concepts.
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  But please move File:Tajfel's Theory of Social Identity.png to Commons.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: I am worried that the creator of this article, Jfwang (talk · contribs), has stopped activity in late April. I'd like to hear him reply to the issues raised above, before the review, by me and in #Moved text about Laszlo Garai's theory, for example. I've reviewed the first section, "Evolution of social identity theory", for now. I'll continue the review once it is confirmed there is an active editor (or editors) who are willing to respond to this review.
Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, but a sociologist. Input from a reviewer versed in psychology would be nice, but... we can wish upon a star :) I am also a non-native speaker of English, so while the prose sounds right to me, I cannot claim it is brilliant and always sounds right. I have not verified that all material corresponds to the references cited, some are behind pay-walls I have no access to, and I simply don't have several hours to dedicate to checking 44 references, including dozens of academic papers. Nothing in the article raised a red flag by looking dubious or unreliable, based on my current state of knowledge, to justify more detailed verification. Hence I am assuming good faith and proper referencing standards on the part of the author(s).
Other comments: Please notify me on my talk page when responses are posted here; I'll return the same courtesy (my watchlist can get swamped).
Pass or Fail: 

A week has passed with no reply. I am failing this article. Please do not nominate articles for GA if there is no will to follow up and reply to reviewer comments. We have a backlog to deal with, and such nominations are not helping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a section on how social identity can be tested for would be a useful addition. Thoughts? Kansaikiwi (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems like if anything that would be content for the social identity approach page. And yes, content reflecting the challenge of measuring identification vs. salience could be of real value. I would support an addition along those lines. I think Haslam’s 2001 'Psychology in Organizations' book would be a good starting point. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The theory is microeconomic in nature, so using the term "macro-economic" confuses. 138.251.14.34 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"While this macro-economic theory deals exclusively with already well established categories of social identity, Laszlo Garai applied the concept of social identity in economic psychology[33] and takes into consideration identities in statu nascendi (i.e. just when something is about to begin)."

Following  the GA discussion above, the article has been substantionally improved, e.g. through the contributions by U3964057. I shink it is now worth being classified as a "Good Article". I don't know how the formal procedure is: maybe expression opinions on this same page ist the best way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflis (talk • contribs)  17:14, 26 January 2013

Hi Aflis. Firstly, thanks for the positive feedback. The process for nominating articles for good article review is quite straight forward and instructions can be found here. This is something that I have not done myself for two reasons. One is that it would have felt a little conceited on my part (given that much of the content was my doing). The other is that it is quite an involved processes and I was not sure I could commit the time. A good article review can be quite detailed and there are often many small issues that need to be addressed. If you or others, however, are confident that it meets the good article criteria and are happy to stay involved in the process then by all means nominate the article. I will help where I can. Cheers all Andrew (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think someone should go ahead and nominate, but first check 1) that there is enough density of references in all sections: a paragraph without a terminating reference, or any references at all, is suspect (see "The interpersonal-intergroup continuum" and "Social creativity". If that text is based on refs that are already used, create a duplicate ref just to make sure it's clear what those statements are based on. 2) that the text early on in the article doesn't require a very high level of English or technical knowledge. The article generally does well on this count, which is admirable given the topic, but early on we have the phrase "permeability of the intergroup environment": even knowing some social psychology, it takes some unpacking to see what this means, and it might put off people who don't have a very high level of confidence in English. Would "how easy it is to move from one group to others" serve as a (nearly) words-of-one-syllable explation of that concept, or have I misunderstood? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I have gone ahead and tried to address the concerns that Martin has raised (hi Martin, to my knowledge your straight forward summary was spot on). I will obviously be around and will try to help further deal with these and other issues. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. I will be around and so have nominated the article as suggested. Fingers crossed all goes well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social identity theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Issues: 1) article is underlinked; examples from the lead: behaviours, legitimacy, social categorization (it's ok for some topics to be red links); then the first para is totally without any links. This problem continues throughout most of the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I added citation needed tags. Otherwise refs seem high quality.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Hard to say if you are not a specialist it that little tiny area of social sciences. I may be a sociologist but I am not a social identity expert. AGF pass.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Obvious pass.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Obvious pass.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Obvious pass.
Overall: Preliminary review shows to quick-to-id problems: underlinking and several paragraphs missing end-of-para cites (which also raises the doubts whether all sentences missing cites can be trusted to referenced by cites following some later sentences). For now, I'll place it on hold, and will continue the review once those major issues have been fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

Hi Piotrus. Thanks for taking the time to do the review. I have tried to address the two concerns you raised (i.e. the underlinking and the odd missing reference). Let me know if you have further thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All right. I will now provide a full review (previous one was just a red flag check; this time I carefully read the entire article):
WP:LEAD recommends that lead should not contain new information; this allows to reduce the number of citations per lead. I'd suggest that all claims from the lead like about who invented the theory are copied into the main text, and then the citations from the lead are moved to the main body. This is NOT a requirement, but is is a recommendation.
why social categorization is not red linked? WP:RED should be observed.
Last lead sentence, beginning with "To avoid confusion", reads akward. Suggest rewarding (add it to "is suggested" and move it earlier?)
I do tend to nitpick ilinks. Consider ilinking: social structural, motivated, distinctiveness, status group, Dominic Abrams, empirical.
Suggestion: consider renaming the "Positive distinctiveness" section to "Positive distinctiveness motivations"
At one point, the article has a page reference (p. 38). This takes me to a more serious problem with references.  Haslam (2001) is a book reference, yet all but this and later (p. 40) citation are missing page references. Please note that WP:CITE at GA level requires that all book references give a page (or a small range). This also is a problem for other book cites in this article (Hogg, another Haslam work - please fix all of those). In another place,  (p. 142) is used for a journal. It is ok  not cite journal pages, but it is of course preferable to do so. But  (p. 142) does not belong in text; I'd suggest creating a separate ref for the page-version for this article ref. Ditto later for (p. 346).
"identity management strategy" is  mentioned once, without any explanation what it is. I suggest expanding and defining this term somewhere. It is doubly confusing as this section discussed "Positive distinctiveness strategies", but now mentions a different set?
"individualistic approach and an interactionist approach" - what are those? Best solution: ilink
"however, the collectivist perspective" - however, this perspective was not even mentioned before
"minimal group studies" - what are those? link or explain
Oakes - unlike other researchers mentioned so far in text by name, his/her first name is not given. Suggest adding it and ilinking.
" punishing the in-group less benefits self-esteem less than" - grammar? one  less too many? or just confusing, suggest rewording
"self-definitional dimensions" - jargon warning, please explain what those are or link them
Charles Stangor and John Jost - more names that should be ilinked
"SIT-lite" please clearly explain for layman what SIT is. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
These comments are extremely useful. Now, if the article is developed in line with all of them, it is in my view a candidate not for a "good article", but for an "excellent article". NB: Opinion of a sociologist trying to do interdisciplinary work...  --Aflis (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus. It obviously took me a while but I have been through your review. I believe that I have made changes reflecting most of the points you have raised. There are only a couple of occasions where I chose not to make changes. I will explain each presently:
Dot point one – I do agree that some there is a lot of information in the lead and that it is citation heavy. I also agree that a ‘development’ section is something that the article should have and that this would help address these issues. In the end, unfortunately, I just didn’t feel like I had the time to do this. I will probably get around to it eventually, just not for this review.
Don’t point five – I am hesitant to change the title of the positive distinctiveness section to something like ‘positive distinctiveness motivation’. For some reason I feel like what stands currently is fine. That being said, I do not have a strong opinion about this.
Don’t point ten – The minimal group studies are wiki-linked when they first come up so no change was made there. Eventually there would be some elaboration in a development section, but as I mentioned above I do not have time to do this immediately.
I hope you find all of this satisfactory. Of course, let me know of your further thoughts. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the article has improved enough to be GA, so I am passing this review. More work may be needed for Featured, if you want to keep working on it. Otherwise I will be happy to review another GA of yours for WP:SOCIO :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns for proper formatting and writing style are quite legitimate, but it is not helpful to perform wholesale reversions of all new additions to this article.  Rather, we should we should work to improve and integrate content from new contributors, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.  Experienced users like myself will be glad to help with formatting concerns.  And if there are concerns over factual correctness or subject scope, it would be much better for these to be discussed specifically here on the talk page, rather than just being lumped in with unrelated style issues in edit summaries.--Pharos (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pharos. I am pretty sure this is directed at me, and I am happy to discuss any concerns you might have. That being said, I really am not sure where exactly your concern is coming from. I don't believe I have been overly zealous in reverting additions, and I definitely don't think have ever reverted an addition due solely to formatting and writing style. For example, in two of the more recent edits I felt that the relevance was tenuous and that the referencing was incomplete. These are substantial problems and I think the article was better off without that material included. The writing and formatting problems are real and I did mention them, but I don't think I ever tried to make the case that this was the primary reason for revision. I also don't think I have ever curtailed discussion about possible additions, and have always engaged on the talk page in good faith.
Perhaps if you can point me to a particular instance where you think I made the wrong call? That might help make clear the issue for me. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, I have an example.  You twice removed information I added.  The first time you didn't like the grammar (even though you had written the sentence n the first place) and you could have fixed the grammar.  And you said the relationship was tenuous, but you had no evidence or reasoning.  Even though I disagreed with you, butI rewrote it in a different place nevertheless.  THEN you deleted it because I had put it back, EVEN THOUGH I had accepted your concerns.  And EVEN THOUGH it was different from the first time and not just a reverting of your edit.  I think you need to follow your own advice, and NOT remove things twice if the person has modified their entry in response to your concerns.  You can't be the arbiter of the page.  I actually think the page overemphasizes Turner's work, but I'm not going to delete it. I'm going to put my info back again.  DON'T remove it unless you have a substantive reason. I agree with Pharos here. MicheleJackson (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi MicheleJackson. Other editors can correct me if they think I am being unreasonable (Pharos?), but I think it is disingenuous for you to claim that you "accepted my concerns". Looking at the two edits ([1] [2]) I think it is pretty clear that you reapplied your original edit without change, and simply added more content on the second occasion. And does this sound like accepting someones concerns to you?
Fix the grammar (it's your sentence) or citation, don't delete it. connection not tenuous, read the article. I moved it to above'
Also, the grammar in the sentence was fine, until your addition broke it. I pointed this out, along with your incorrect referencing, but you reapplied your edit without even addressing either of these easy to fix issues.
More substantively, tenuous relevance is a rationale, and I still have that concern. If it is not clear to you then ask to discuss the matter on the talk page as per wikipedia best practice (Would you like to?). Please do not once again try to push through with your edit without any attempt to reach consensus. This is edit warring and can lead to sanctions. Regards Andrew (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
seriously, I am honestly confused by your objection to my second edit.  You still have not supported your assertion that the link is tenuous. Repeating it is not explanation.  YOU didn't use Wikipedia best practice of talking.  You just reverted.  YOU are pushing through your edit in the form of protecting your vision of the page (ironically, it could be argued is is an ingroup group move).  So. If you have a substantive concern with the material I am posting, argue it now. Don't just repeat yourself.  Otherwise, your removal of it is unjustified, and I would also hold the sanctions for edit wars apply to you as well.
I use the template provided by the editor.  If the citation is "incorrect", well.... Get them to change the editor....or just change it yourself. Lots of excellent volunteers do just that.
.... So, I've read the edit wars page that you linked to, and my behavior here does not fall within it (because I did not revert) but yours came close (because you reverted twice very quickly).  Also, you might read the page on Tendentious editing.
Hi MicheleJackson. You can blame me for your incorrect grammar. I can take it. But please don’t blame the poor defenceless referencing template for your referencing error. There is not much the template can do if you enter the wrong year. As for your claim that you “did not revert”, you know that Wikipedia keeps a record of these things right?
Anyway, looking past your bluster, I can see that you have finally asked to discuss the edit on the talk page. Excellent. Happy to do so. I will contribute a bit of exposition probably on Monday. For future reference though, you will probably save yourself a lot of agitation if you just head to talk page in the first place. Regards Andrew (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello All, Andrew, taking a look at your talk page, and the edit history of this page, you seem to have a pattern of this kind of Tendentious editing, with this page in particular. My suggestion from this point going forward:
MicheleJackson, Barbiehan89, SilRamos, and Jenyih make their edits. They should be careful to ensure that their edits are properly formatted, grammatically correct, and that the references are inputted correctly. I strongly suggest you preview all your edits before saving them.
As instructed by Pharos, Andrew can make constructive edits to the new content added.
If Andrew wants to revert any edits, he must discuss it here on the talk page. It is not enough to claim subject area expertise, as other editors have this as well. All parties will do so in good faith, and without provoking each other. This especially holds true of claims of factual accuracy.
If the editors cannot reach consensus, we will ask a more experienced editor with subject area expertise, such as Piotrus to contribute. My understanding is that the presence of edit wars may compromise the GA status of this article.--Theredproject (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to assign blame, certainly there could have been more past talk page discussion by all sides.  But I do think that we should go forward like this in a more inclusive way, by folks adding bits where they feel appropriate, and editing each other's bits where they feel appropriate.  Several others on this page have subject matter expertise, and I think the best results will be obtained by an active collaboration; I do not have this subject matter expertise myself, but I'll be glad to volunteer help with style and outside opinion if needed.--Pharos (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Theredproject and Pharos. I still feel confused the concerns being raised here and disappointed in the way this is being handled. Assign blame for what? Where is the Tendentious editing? I am at this stage not willing to accept this censure. Nor am I willing to voluntarily subject myself to restrictions that other editors are not subject to. Restrictions that, incidentally, seem to fly in the face of the extremely healthy Wikipedia norms.
To repeat, I do not know where this concern is coming from. Are there complaints that have been made against me that I am not aware of? Or are there mistakes I am making that I have not recognized? Could someone please discuss this with me and take the time to help me understand what the problem is (you will have to excuse me if I don't view Mhjackson as a reliable witness). It seems like some discussion would be appropriate before partially revoking my editing privileges. Is there no chance for us to come to agreement? I would also like to see these points considered:
This article is stable, and there is no persistent edit warring by my assessment.
The only recent edit conflict was with MicheleJackson, and without too much hassle the issue is now (hopefully productively) being discussed on the talk page as it should be. Unfortunately, that discussion process has now been undermined.
The quality of the article has been maintained, with no reduction in grammar, referencing, or formatting quality since its GA status.
The article is subject to frequent editing by tertiary students. While I value these wiki-assignments, often the editors are only going through the motions and the edits are only minimally considered. In the case of Barbiehan89 for example, I suspect that the contributions are (poorly) plagiarized from an article or chapter. It seems obviously appropriate to revert such additions, and while I am happy to talk about them, it shouldn’t be surprising if some student editors are not motivated to talk meaningfully about their contribution.
I know of no guideline that would suggest that claiming that something is factually incorrect is inappropriate. I am of course happy to discuss any disagreement, but it may be that being direct saves a lot of time and hassle.  For example, SilRamos may well not have pursued the matter further because he simply re-read his sources.
It is demonstrably not the case that I am simply blocking any changes to this article or any other articles on my watch list.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing from both of you. Perhaps over at my talk page, as you seem to be taking umbrage with me rather than have a need to discuss the article. Regards Andrew (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there has been a misunderstanding.  I didn't mean to put in any sort of sanction, but merely to emphasize the paths for collaboration on the talk page, such as you've helpfully started with MicheleJackson below.  While student editors such as Barbiehan89 can sometimes not be as quickly responsive as experienced Wikipedians, this is mostly due to their unfamiliarity with the community processes, and in this case it is especially helpful to engage more, given that we are in close communication with the class instructors (of whom Theredproject is one).  I think we're really on the same page here.--Pharos (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi MicheleJackson. As promised, here is a bit of an elucidation on why I thought that this addition was too tenuously related (having already talked above about the grammar and referencing issues). I hope it is ok if we start by talking about this part of your contribution. I suspect it will inform any subsequent discussion about your further addition.
I guess there are two key points:

I wouldn't really say that the source "explores the triggers for ingroup favoritism in virtual teams". That would imply to me that the article delves into the common categorization schemes that play out in virtual teams. Instead the article tests the applicability of SIT and SCT to subgrouping in virtual teams, which is related, but is not quite the same and is a more niche topic.
Given that the source article is about testing the effects of social categorization on virtual team subgrouping, it seems like there are other articles where such content is more relevant (e.g. virtual team). Yes, the source does invoke SIT, but so do thousands of other articles (10,000+ so far I believe) in countless other domains. Attempting to cover all here seems futile, and also might distract wiki readers from the primary purpose of this article; what is SIT?.
Another concern of mine is that the source seems to be an example of SIT-light. That is, it simplifies SIT down to categorization -> ingroup favoritism (see page 335). This is disappointing, and I personally would avoid linking to the article for this reason also, but if it can get past peer review then I should grudgingly accept it for wikipedia.
I would be happy to see the application to virtual teams mentioned in the article, but in a way that does not give this particular application to much weight in amongst discussion of the facets of SIT. One suggestion would be to add an "applications section" and begin a paragraph about virtual teams there. Alternatively, the content could be added to the ingroup favoritism article or the social identity approach article, where I also think it might be more appropriate. How does that sound to you (or other editors)? Regards Andrew (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, the edits I made to the positive distinctiveness section of this page were made because as the article was written, there was no difference in definition between "positive self-concept" and "positive distinctiveness."  Positive distinctiveness is a combination of wanting to feel good about one's group (i.e., positive self-concept) and wanting one's group to be positively differentiated, or distinct, from other groups.  If you think my references are lacking, I am happy to work on this with you.  I am not interested in a contentious back-and-forth.  I, like you, am attempting to make this page as informative and complete as possible.  SilRamos (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SilRamos. You will see that I have gone ahead and reverted you most recent addition. I do wish that you had come to the talk page first to discuss the addition (despite Theredproject's suggestion that we dispense with wp:brd). The article would have been that little bit more stable that way. I also wish you had taken on board the one point from Theredproject that I do agree with. That is, please take the effort to ensure that the formatting and grammar of your edits are correct.
In terms of the substantive aspects of the edit, while I am more on board with the latest than your earlier edit, I still think that it is misleading. Specifically, I do not think it is accurate to say that a want to be in a distinct group is a component part of positive distinctiveness. I also do not think that your sources support that view (although feel free to direct me to where you think there might be support). It is instead more accurate to say that a strive for positive distinctiveness is a motivational assumption of SIT, and the act of positively differentiating one's group is one way of achieving that. I think this is pretty clear in the 1979;1986 paper, and in particular in these theoretical principals:
1. Individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive social identity.
2. Positive social identity is based to a large extent on favorable comparisons that can be made between the in-group and some relevant out-groups: the ingroup must be perceived as positively differentiated or distinct from the relevant out-groups.
3. When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will strive either to leave their existing group and join some more positively distinct group and/or to make their existing group more positively distinct.
Note that there is only one motivational component and that the term 'positively distinct' is used interchangeably with 'positively differentiated'. Also note that attempts to "make their existing group more positively distinct" is only one of two strategies to resolve unsatisfactory social identity.
This leads me to my primary concern with your latest edit. You have added "...these valued dimensions...are asserted by groups to ensure a "distinct" group identity" in a section about the motivational assumptions of SIT. This would imply that SIT predicts that this will always be something that people attempt to do. This is not the case. SIT predicts that people will assert positive group distinctiveness (either through social creativity or social competition) only under a limited set of circumstances (e.g. when the intergroup relationship is perceived to unstable/illegitimate and impermeable). These strategies are already covered in the article, and you are adding motivational assumptions that are not in the theory. Further, by treating attempts to assert group distinctiveness as omnipresent you are ignoring important qualifiers and moving the article toward SIT-lite.
It is true that there are two motivational factors described in the social identity literature. These are the strive for positive distinctiveness and the strive for clear differentiation of social entities. Importantly, however, the latter is a component of SCT, not SIT (see page 624 of your own source; also Jetten et al., 2004, which I think is clearer). I would be happy to see this distinction covered wikipedia, but it would be more appropriate in the social identity approach page, which covers both theories. Does this resonate with you at all? Regards Andrew (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Draft:Social identity theory and comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Social identity theory if it's useful? If so, I'll withdraw the request immediately and leave it be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dog&cat2002 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lal2298.
— Assignment last updated by Trolleyman32 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Dog&cat2002: and thanks for your attempts to improve this article, which I understand from the above announcement you are doing as part of a course. I hope you don't mind some feedback on your recent work.

This is a Good Article, meaning that it has been reviewed as already meeting a high standard, which means it's a very bad choice for someone to work on in their first Wikipedia edits. This isn't your fault; the course leader should not have included it in the target articles of the course.
Your edits didn't cite any sources! This is an important failing: Wikipedia is a summary of published knowledge, so we need to know and be able to check what published knowledge is being summarised, especially on a Good Article. You wrote "I was able to find supporting knowledge by using my sources". If that's the case, you should indicate what the sources are by clicking the "Cite" button. "Favorable self-perception increases the likelihood that an individual would relate well to other members of the group and experience favorable feelings about themselves.  People's perceptions of themselves are shaped by the group they identify with more strongly." - maybe or maybe not; how do we know that self-perceptions are shaped in this way, or have these effects? What's the nature of the evidence and where was the evidence published?
Lots of the statements you inserted are extremely general and vague. "Identification is more in depth than we think."- what does that actually mean. You're describing a difference between what "we"(?) think and what is backed up by evidence; you need sources for both those things.
Wikipedia shouldn't give advice to the reader or use first-person or second-person language ("I", "we", "you"). So "...if we know how to control it in efficient way like this example, we will find success." has to be phrased a different way, as well as supported with citations.
Wikipedia should be written in proper English. "...we can find out how efficient and injustice they are." A fluent English speaker would not talk about "how injustice" something is. "However, ultimately the value of understanding and knowing a cultures identity is ideal." - what does this mean as an English sentence? What does "ideal" mean in this context?
The first few sentences of an article should define the article's topic and give the most basic introduction to it for people who have not encountered the topic before. Your version talks about social identity and goes straight into talking about student athletes, when the reader just wants to know what social identity theory is.
Please take great care when editing Wikipedia. It's better to add just one cited, carefully checked sentence than to add multiple paragraphs of text that leave the reader wondering what they really mean and what the evidence is. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback and I am sure this will help the learner understand different writing genres, how to choose articles, and the importance of citations and word choice. Regards. Kwv2014 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)