Talk:Social relation

message: I think the introductory definition of social relation is too waffly. When I wrote an article on "social relations", I tried to be very specific about what social relations are. User:Jurriaan
: Waffly is a bit unprecise. If you refer to the this, it was much less specific. The first para stated there is no agreed on definition. Wikipedia:Lead clearly states that The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic. I believe the current definition is all right - I took it from referenced Piotr Sztompka's book. The first section goes deeper into the discussion of the meaning. Of coures, you should be bold and rewrite/improve this if you have a better vision. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Should there not be talk of society when dealing with social relations, as well as socialization processes?
160.36.192.34 18:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you are encouraged to be bold and update the article, please remember that Wikipedia is no place for original research.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Society

message: I think the rewrite is highly biased, since it prefers a neo-Weberian sociological reading of social relations to ALL other social scientific thinking about this concept. To mention a few faults: what "social" means and what marks out a social relation in contrast to other sorts of relation is not defined; animals do not simply engage in "physical movements" but are socially related and engage in social interaction; social relations can be between individuals or between groups of people; etc. I think the article should at least preserve the valid content of earlier versions, and if it is claimed to be vague, that proof is given that it is vague User:Jurriaan 12:18 18 April 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.223.40 (talk)  
: I agree with the sentiments expressed above.  When I examined the chart, presented in such a way that it infers, unintentionally or otherwise, that it is THE "sociological hierarchy", its content seemed to me to be debatable.  For instance how can it be held that "behaviours" have no meaning or that they carry no expectation of response etc?  I have tagged the reference given for this as it is not specific enough to verify and to indicate that the chart, even if it is an accurate representation of Sztompka's views, portrays only one possible taxonomy of social interactions. LookingGlass (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree chart should just be pulled/wiped without a necessity of replacement. Lycurgus (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: It seems to me necessarily so as it meets the definition in the lede. So I want to link in See also. Mrdthree (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quorum sex is, it's among the many shortcomings of the current article. Lycurgus (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is sexual behavor social behavior?

message: There is a much more detailed page named interpersonal ties with discussions of Granovetter's contributions, but also Burt's and Simmel's etc. I believe 'interpersonal ties' and 'social relations' should be discussed in the same article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCarl (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 'interpersonal ties' page?