Talk:Social hierarchy

message: I inserted the rewrite template. This article is all over the place. No cohesion, and does not explain what is meant, if anything, by social hierarchy. Does it have something to do with unequal wealth distribution? If not, why is that section there? etc, etc.  I don't know what social hierarchy is, so I don' think I can help. RJII 05:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article desperately, desperately, desperately needs sourcing. Babajobu 10:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Wilson, the father of Sociobiology equates the term social hierarchy with dominance hierarchy.  Perhaps, both articles should be merged.  I am linking this article to the article on dominance hierarchy.--Reefpicker 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dominance Hierarchy

message: Someone is trying to silence the other side of the debate on social inequality in an encyclopedia that is not supposed to blatantly propagandize for either side. In this unfair article we hear exclusively of the radical feminist and Marxist philosophies without presentation of other viewpoints, as if neo-Marxism was an untouchable a priori dogma. The following counter-thesis I am posting here for the records in case partisans continue their censorship of the other side:
On the other hand, many sociologists who do not subscribe to modern social dogmas emphasize that hierarchical social stratification is normal and inherent to all societies. Renowned sociologist Pierre van den Berghe believes that the predominating liberal-Marxist obsession with linear equality is dysfunctional: "That all men are created equal may have seemed a self-evident truth to the amiable optimist who signed the United States Declaration of Independence, but it flies in the face of all evidence ... Egalitarianism may be good rhetoric, but is bad sociology, and empirically, rank nonsense ... A hierarchical order is evident in the human family, the smallest and most universal form of human social organization" (Man in Society: A Biosocial View, New York: Elsevier, 1978, pp. 137-8). Sociologist Joseph Fichter argues, "The aspiration for complete democracy or for perfect equality among people is without scientific validity. Similarly, the promotion of an ideal of a classless society is both unrealistic and impossible" (Sociology, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 49). Dye and Ziegler point out: "Even if inequalities of wealth were eliminated, differences among men in intelligence, organizational skills, leadership abilities, knowledge and information, drive and ambition, and interest and activity would remain ... Men are not born with the same abilities, nor can they acquire them by education. Inequalities among men are inevitable" (The Irony of Democracy, pp. 363-364).  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.162.135.142 (talk) 00:48:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
Is there something someone can do to stop obvious trollers like "max rspct" and so on from destroying the balanced perspective of the article and enforcing, gangster-style, only the marxist viewpoint on social hierarchy?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 10:00:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
I agree. The political system definitions also are not accurate, perhaps creating a "goodness" scale based on this pro-equality bias. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-leftist Agenda

message: Is this section appropriate? This is not a forum after all, and this seems to encourage POV. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in total agreement.  The recent unsigned addition to the article states that inequalities are inevitable, but this does not mean we stop trying to create a fair society in which every person can live up to his or her potential.  There is strong scientific evidence that differences between individuals do not necessarily lead to economic differences or hierarchies, as demonstrated by kinship oriented societies.--Pariah 18:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Woah--take it easy.  Nobody said Western culture is no good, just that it could stand some improvement.  What's important about the stone age cultures mentioned is that they have achieved equality among their members.  If they can do it, maybe we can do it, too.  Equality is an achievable goal that does not have to lead to stagnation.  Competition is not the only way to spark innovation, and it is not necessary that we must live under the yoke of dominance hierarchies in order to advance ourselves.--Pariah 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments Pariah. The comments from unsigned are really over the line.  Libertarian and conservative viewpoints are legitimate, and can be legitimatly represented on Wiki pages.  But unsigned is giving us a Limbaugh ditto-head rant that suggests that if we attempt to curtail the excesses of the ruling class that we will all end up living in caves.  Unsigned then goes on to say that Bushmen and Aborigines are Homo erectus hybrids.  That is flat-out racism which is totally contradicted by DNA evidence and has no place in any rational discussion of the issue.Calamagrostis 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Unsigned, you have interspersed your comments in such a way that this discussion is becoming unreadable.  As for the content of your argument, you have made the mistake of assuming that "equality" equals "sameness."  People can be unique and still have political and economic equality--that is unless you assume that some people are somehow better and should rule while others are inferior and should be ruled.  But judgments of that type are completely arbitrary. How do you decide who are the "highest human specimens"?  That is, unless you are simply arguing for maintaining the status quo.  If left-wing ideology is fashionable, it is only because it makes more sense to most people than the few ruling the many.  Don't get upset if most people find this unfair and seek to change it.--Pariah 19:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Calamagrostis--you're absolutely right.--Pariah 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody disputes that there are genetic differences between racial groups; what is at issue is whether those differences make one group "superior" or more fit to rule than any other.  Different does not mean better.  As for this supposed "witch-hunt," there is a direct link to an anti-semitic article on the main page of one of unsigned's quoted websites (http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/foxman.html), which renders the discussion over as far as I am concerned.--Pariah 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance is Needed 

message: I merged this page with social stratification. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I reverted it back.  Please see WP:MM on how to propose a merge  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There cannot be a consensus or even no consensus as no one has been offered the option to vote. If you want me to apply all the templates and sections for you then just ask.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Fine, but it's nice to give other editors the chance to comment.  If they don't do so, then merge away, and then you can add "merge as per talk page" as an edit summary, and no one will complain.  Anyway, I've applied the mergeto and mergefrom templates, and created the section Talk:Social_stratification#Merger_proposal for the comments (linked from both page templates)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The discussion is only on one page (to make it easier to follow) - but the templates on the two article pages link to just the one page and section - Talk:Social_stratification#Merger_proposal, so editors who see either template can converse with each other.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree to merge of this article into social stratification, but not vice versa--Tomsega (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: In relation to the previous discussion, maybe we should just answer this question up front. If anthropologists describe the issue as 'social hierarchy', then this page could be removed from the sociology portal and kept strictly for anthropologists. If both sociologists and anthropologists generally call it 'social stratification', then maybe this page should be removed/merged. --Tomsega (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do anthropologists call it 'social hierarchy'? 

message: This is the new centralised discussion regarding the overlap of social stratification, social hierarchy and social class. Previous scattered discussions can be found at #Merge and Talk:Social stratification. No consensus was reached in the previous discussions.
Everyone seems to agree on two things: (1) social stratification is a core topic of sociology; and (2) no one's ever heard the term social hierarchy used. Most of the previous disagree votes were due to this confusion. Indeed, it's social hierarchy that's problematic here; just about everything in it is covered elsewhere. All in all, this entire article can be "merged" into the other 2 and then redirected to social stratification.
My particular issue with this article (and how I reached the page in the first place) is the overlap with hierarchy and organizational hierarchy. Social hierarchies are about sociological issues, are they not? But the lead paragraph for this article doesn't do anything to distinguish that. It specifically defines a hierarchy, provides examples of organizational hierarchies, and then starts talking about social stratification in feminism without ever providing an example of a social hierarchy or even defining what social is referring to! It fails WP:LEAD by not summarizing its own contents. 
Since the merge tags at "social class" and "social stratification" are now redirecting here, I'll just add one point: there's quite a bit of overlap going on between these two when there doesn't need to be. Social classes are the strata, and social stratification encompasses the entire system. The theories and issues discussed in each articles should remember that distinguishment. — Skittleys (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Social hierarchy must be merged into social stratification, ie. the proper social scientific term for the topic at hand. --Tomsega (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  These articles are now merged. We achieved a small consensus (4 agreed, none disagreed), and bearing in mind how few people are contributing to either of these pages currently, I don't think it should cause any controversy. This, the social hierarchy page has been replaced with a redirect. I have taken the best elements that were here and incorporated them there. I have also divided the article somewhat between sociology and anthropology, as the social hierarchy article had a slightly more anthropological emphasis (despite it not being any official term). A hell of a lot of work still needs to be done - social stratification still is - as I'm sure any knowledgeable person would agree - not a particularly good article at present. I'll return every day for the next week or so to sort it out, hopefully some other users can help.  --Tomsega (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merges

message: I guess this is not a good merge.
I was looking for social hierarchy but I couldn't find anything good and knowledgeable in the social stratification about the term. As I looked in the history of this page, I see there have been useful information that are not present in the social stratification!
at least there should be a part for definition, which was not present. social hierarchy is a common term in anarchism viewpoints and books. I suggest taking the merge back. Should there be voting for this again? Amidelalune (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?