Talk:Collectivism (disambiguation)/Archive 3

message: I'd prefer to see them in harmony :) What I have learned most from this article and talk page is that Collectivism is poorly defined. Maybe we should just put it on VfD ;) Sam [Spade] 16:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't actually intend to do that, more a bit of humor at all the stress over such an ill defined topic :) Sam [Spade] 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substance supercedes form? 

message: Now that you've all seen and discussed Sam's version of this article, please see the version that I am trying to defend: 
You will find that it answers many of your concerns, and, though it is not perfect, it is at least better than the alternative. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record, here's the version I was defending 

message: You deleted some stuff out of the intro believing it was POV. Here is a definition of collectivism from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary ...
* 1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members
* 2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior -- see HOLISM
* 3 : 2COLLECTIVE 2, 3
And this is from Encyclopedia Britannica...
* any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.
It doesn't look to me like it was POV but goes along with this understanding.  RJII 14:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  172.149.62.79 

message: This article is pretty bad. Let's fix it, by replacing it with sourceable material. Right now it looks like editors are just making up stuff off the top of their heads. I'm putting in a new intro. My sources for this are the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica. RJII 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Utilitarian collectivists argue that the individual should be subordinate to a collectivity for his own good. Rousseau's social contract, which you cited, is an example of this view. Definition c. from Merriam-Webster, which you cited, also explains this view. Since a collective is made up of individuals, the good of the collective must logically imply the good of at least some individuals. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean implies the good of some individuals? What do you mean by "the good." Do you mean maximization of well-being --the best interest? If so, there is no logical necessity that collectivism is in the the best interest of any of the individuals in a collectivist situation. And, of course, that wouldn't be a concern of the collectivist but the individualist. RJII 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  time to fix this article 

message: I'm mostly looking at this article from the standpoint of issues regarding anarchism. I'm really not comfortable with how this term is being defined, particularly in comparison to individualism. This page suggests that collectivism is almost in direct opposition to individualism, even aggressive against individual freedom. I don't think many or any so-called collectivist anarchists oppose the liberty of the individual. Mikhail Bakunin, (who, according to anarchism, espoused collectivism) once said that "Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa." L. Susan Brown argues that all anarchists are individualist, but divides individualism between instrumental individualism and existential individualism. The difference, she argues, is only that instrumental individualists believe in the freedom of people to accomplish things and compete (ala liberalism), whereas existential individualists sees that freedom as an end in itself (ala anarchist communism). My point being that this page needs to note collectivism's relation to individualism, because it remains unclear (although is certainly not always as hostile as this article seems to suggest). Sarge Baldy 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the definition is sourced. If you've got any other sourced definitions feel free to cite them here. Note that "Collectivism" was the proper name of the Bakuninite philosophy. That's different than calling it a collectivist philosophy, which I agree that it isn't entirely so. It had collectivist and individualist elements. RJII 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think that's what confuses me. Perhaps the Collectivism of Bakunin needs an article of its own? How it's discussed here it's to an extreme that just isn't consistent with how it was used by so-called collectivist anarchists, who clearly placed importance on the concept of individual liberty (if defining that liberty in a very different way than liberal anarchists). Sarge Baldy 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Collectivism" 

message: Avner Greif, a very prominent figure in economics, economic history, and game theory these days, uses the term "collectivism" to mean a set of cultural beliefs  that "support an economic self-enforcing collective punishment, horizontal agency relations, segregation, and an ingroup social communications network." See his contribution to an anthology, "The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics" (1997) for the context. I don't know how that source intersects with the partisan splits I see on this talk page. Orthogonally, I'd hope. --Christofurio 02:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be useful if more editors found scholarly material on collectivism rather than attempting to rewrite the definition based on a particular political bias.  The libertarian view should be mentioned, but as the minority view.  More scholarship from mainstream sources would help.--Cberlet 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even understand the complaint against the scholarly definition. Britannica isn't a very good source anyway, since most people would agree that Wikipedia isn't much of an encyclopedia when it quotes other encyclopedias in defining something. It's not as if Britannica would ever source, let alone quote Wikipedia in one of their articles. We can't assume any sources are "NPOV". We need to work with what sources we have to find a definition people can agree with. Sarge Baldy 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I was just trying to fix the cite, but would rather see the Sarge Baldy version.--Cberlet 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no complaints about scholarly definition, if it’s credible (how credible and mainstream are these   sources?). -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they not credible or not mainstream? Please explain. -- Nikodemos 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m asking for opinion on how credible and mainstream those sources are since I never heard for them. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody is ready to stand up for those sources? -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody is ready to stand up for those sources I'm removing them. -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're kidding. Those sources are peer-reviewed academic journal entries, which are absolutely the best sources to use per Wikipedia policy. If any sources on this page are of questionable use, it's the use of a tertiary source (the Encyclopedia Britannica) as a primary source. Sarge Baldy 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: However, view that collectivism is "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class" is a significant view and it’s backed up by credible source. So there is no reason for its exclusion. -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn’t make any claim of consensus, for me "per talk" means "for reasons I presented on talk page". Also, I advise you to refrain from public stigmatization and try to keep a cool head. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Definition 

message: I removed the dictionary definitions from the introduction.  The introduction, after all, is intended to be an overview of the content of the article; in this case, the very first section of the article notes that there is no universally-agreed upon definition of collectivism.  Therefore, presenting a dictionary definition in the intro as if it was the commonly-accepted definition of collectivism is inappropriate. Few encyclopedia articles rely on a dictionary definition, and this case, in particular, seems like a poor place to start.  I think that, instead, it might make sense to have at least a mention of anti-collectivism in the intro, since the term would seem to be, in the modern world, used most often by groups that define themselves in opposition to it. --Aquillion 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of dictionary definitions from the intro... 

message: would vertical collectivism not just be totalitarianism instead of collectivism? sounds so to me, reading this article. or else totalism, too much of those words anyway--Lygophile 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vertical collectivism 

message: There is enough content in this article that is unreferenced to warrent the  tag. I have tagged those sections with  and .--Sefringle 03:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: How can it be justified to classify Hegel - in one line with Marx - as early socialist?
Pherrmann (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  early socialists 

message: This page discusses collectivism as a social and political philosophy.  However, I've also heard it discussed in a psychological context, along with individualism.  Specifically, these terms were used in discussion a person's or culture's concept of the self.
I took a university course on social psychology where collectivism and individualism were discussed when we covered a person's concept of the self.  From what I recall, a predominantly individualist person would think of himself more in terms of his own attributes ("I am an engineer", "I like pie") while a predominantly collectivist person would think of himself more in terms of his relationships to others ("I am the son of Jason", "I live next door to Mark").  This idea motivated the discussion of the differences between cultures, where many European societies were described as individualist while many Asian societies were described as collectivist psychologically.
Anyone here who'd be able to give an insight on collectivism as it's defined and used in psychology?  I'm not sure I'd be able to help much since psychology is not my major and I lost my class notes. :P
24.224.180.76 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivism in psychology 

message: One only has to look to see that this is true. 20% of this article is made up of criticism of collectivism, while the other 80% try to link collectivism to fascism and Racism.  Most of this seems to be due by those calling themselves individualist, as the “individualism” article has no criticism section. In fact it is nothing more then why individualism is good and groups that claim to be individualist.  The problem is that there is no group that calls itself collectivist out there.  You can clearly see this by  trying to find one pro-collectivist site out, to even start to balance this article out. You will find none; in fact the only link here to a site called “in defense of collectivism” leads to a dead link. This is the reason why there are no external links, and also why the references section is full of links to not only pro Ayn Rand sits, but also to anti-collectivism sties. In fact all the links are to other Wikipedia pages, and the first link is to “Collective guilt”.  The rest are there to link collectivism to fascism and Racism by saying that in these systems the individual must submitted to the state or race. But let’s look at this with a little logic. If being a collectivist means giving up things for the group, and group lines are draw by race, state, or other then by its own terms it can’t be raciest. If a group defines itself in term of race, then people of a different race can’t be asked to sacrifice for it, as they are not part of the same group.  We can all agree that collectivism is the opposite of individualism, but the way we have it defined does not show this. We right now define collectivism as the “few sacrificing for the many”, but define individualism as “individual not sacrificing for anyone”, be them individual or groups. If we truly define them as opposite, then individualism would be “the many sacrificing for the few”.  The funny thing is that this is the way we have it define, but it is not open. Individualism talks about the state getting out of the way of the individual, which means that the state submitted to the wish of the individual, as long as it does not come into conflict with the wish of other individual.  This is the opposite of an individual submitting to the state, but is not clearly written out that way. Logic itself can prove that the very idea of individualism does in fact lead to the “the many sacrificing for the few”.   Let’s say that an individual steals money from a state. The state is not an individual, which based on Individualism we can all agree on. So the government has no right to take back the money, as that individual did not steal for other individual, but form a state. Trying to link collectivism to fascism is other clear sign that this article is write to say “that everything bad has happened because of collectivism”. Let’s forget that fascism opposes democratic systems, just like individualist do, or the fact fascism focused on which individual are better than one other. In fact I could just as easily prove that Individualist are fascist. The United States has ruled in the past those corporations are individual, and Corporatism is the economic system of fascism. Therefore Corporatism = individualism as, Corporatism is for corporations and corporations are individual.  There no point in trying to clean up this bias article the  Individualist will just change it back or go around about way of saying that collectivism is everything wrong with the world, while saying that individualism is everything right. I would like to see someone prove me wrong, but the fact are there. There is no pro- collectivism site, book or sources to reference. I would like it if someone would go over to the “individualism” article and prove to me that there is some criticism of individualism, but I know no one will find any.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.149.139 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Corporations are not individuals. Corporatism is not individualism. Fascism is a form of collectivism, as it involves collectively following a fascist leader. Individualism involves opposition of fascism.--WTF (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the most Point Of View(POV) bias article on Wikipedia 

message: Recommend establishing a talk archive operated by a bot for this article. All is One (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --IllaZilla (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk archive 

message: In the sentence in the title of this section, the assertion that "most" anarchists embrace democracy is completely unsupported and I will change "most" to "some". It can be reverted if someone can provide reliable source, such a peer-reviewed statistical analysis of anarchists around the world, that shows that more than 50% of anarchists "embrace democracy". I conducted a search but could find no such source.
Speaking of reliable sources, the statement in the title of this section is referenced by this webpage: http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001631.html
Spunk.org is an "online anarchist library and archive" owned by Spunk Press. The site is promotional in nature; according to the Wikipedia entry on Spunk Library, Spunk.org "was not intended to replace print publishing, but rather served a shop window promoting anarchist book publishers, newspapers and journals." Wikipedia maintains that "the identity of the author may help determine reliability", but the page referenced does not provide the author's name. So this source is unreliable on multiple counts.
The second source for this statement is "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice". Page 65, which is referenced as the source for this claim, has nothing to do with the statement made; the topic discussed on page 65 is Anarcho-Syndicalist workers of Spain, and democracy or horizontal collectivism is not even mentioned. Nor does it support the "most" anarchist claim I mentioned above. 
Based on these factors, I believe the entire sentence should be stricken. The first source is unrelable, and the second source does not support the assertion. I believe this shows POV and bias on the part of the editor who wrote this part.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.49.108 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this statement and its source: "Left-wing libertarians, such as libertarian socialists and most anarchists, embrace democracy, especially direct democracy and/or participatory democracy specifically because it can be a form of horizontal collectivism." 

message: Is corporatism a form of collectivism?
I reverted another users edit in which they asserted "corporativism definitely isn't a form of collectivism."
I wholeheartedly disagree, there is a clear relationship.
But I thought I should WP:Discuss the matter with other editors here.
--Andrewaskew (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between [[collectivism]] and [[corporatism]] 

message: collectivists think group > individual. socialists want collective ownership of the means of production because socialization of production makes classical liberalism impossible. so, socialists may also be liberal individualists, and when they are are called anarchists; these ideas of collectivism and socialism are not connected in any meaningful way. i'm going to clean the article up appropriately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  i ended up removing the asinine section on the cold war. collectivism is a far better term to use to describe the soviet and nazi systems than socialism, as no workers ever had ownership of the means of production and minority rights were constantly infringed for the purpose of the greater good, which should not happen under socialism. i removed another section that tried to separate between soviet socialism and collectivism, because it likewise made no sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  socialists are not necessarily collectivists 

message: Ayn Rand and Ron Paul are referred to as "right-wing libertarians". I changed this to remove "right-wing" for a basis of neutrality (even though Rand did not categorize herself as a libertarian and was fairly critical of the libertarians), and it was reverted seemingly on the basis of an opinion. Point being, many commentators have said that Rand was not right-wing, citing her being in favor of abortion, and being an atheist, and it seems to me that the ones who consider Rand to be right-wing are usually critical of her. Her exact political views don't exactly fit the description "right-wing", except perhaps economically, if you consider favoring capitalism to be a right-wing position, which I do not. Libertarianism doesn't go hand-in-hand with right-wing politics, either, as libertarianism is usually a mix of being in favor of businessman's rights and social rights. --WTF (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless a reliable source can be found that characterizes both Ayn Rand and Ron Paul as "right-wing libertarians", this is original research and violates Wikipedia's OR and POV policy. I will remove it and it should be reinserted only if it is referenced by reliable sources. Please do not revert without doing so. 76.121.49.108 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an entire article on right-libertarianism, and it does state that propertarian libertarians and anarcho-capitalists like Rand are often described as right-wing by commentators. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right-wing libertarians" 

message: * I put for the suggestion that Collectivism is society working together without a central government. The statement "which in practical terms is the government." should be removed as it does not represent collectivism which is a form of people working together without centralized control. Government is a centralized control mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government "a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective "A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together to achieve a common objective.[citation needed] Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving, but can be that as well."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinsic1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivism is not related to Government 

message: How can USSR or the other stalinist states be described as "collectivist" when they were ruled by regimes and crime families unaccountable to and unalterable by the vast majority. These states could be better desrcribed as extreme individualist, sacrificing the rights of all individuals for the privileges of the concentrated few.
:Official ideology of the Soviet Union, as expressed for example by Andrey Vyshinsky, preferred rights of abstract and vaguely defined working class over the rights of individual citizens. This is perfect example of a collectivist ideology. Kravietz (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR and collectivism 

message: I'm having a real problem with the tail end of the first sentence in this article: "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being." The interdependence of individuals may be a common reason for holding collectivist views, but it is not the best description of what collectivism is. It seems more direct and accurate to retreat to language of the Merriam-Webster definition discussed here previously, roughly: "...that emphasizes the importance of the collective and tends to analyze issues in those terms." I think the "every human being" wording could also be improved. Collectivism has no intrinsic scope; all collectivism is not about a universal collective. This just goes to show that interdependence is a red herring that is leading the description astray.
As well the list of possible outlook types is getting a bit long, accurate though it may be. I would prefer this for an initial sentence: "Collectivism is any system of thought that emphasizes groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—over individuals."
I wasn't going to just drop in and alter the leading sentence without some notice though, so... hit me.
Furball4 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence: interdependence and scope 

message: All organizations and especially states are necessarily collectivist to some extent. They prefer the existence and interest of the whole organisaton over some rights/interest an individual may have. Even a very liberal state subscribed to individual rights would have to do so. They may feign adherence, but in the end they would engage in "collectivist" action, when their interest/existence is at stake. --41.151.208.173 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is actually non-Collectivist? 

message: Dr. Grigoriadis has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Grigoriadis has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2013. "Religious origins of democracies and dictatorships," Discussion Papers 2013/16, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Grigoriadis's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collectivism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071101111958/http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/whyiwrite.htm to http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/whyiwrite.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You write: "Got rid of an oxymoron. You literally cannot mix individualist and collectivist ideologies, that made absolutely no sense. They are opposites by definition, you are either one or the other."
I just want to mention that this is not an accurate understanding of the relationship between collectivism and individualism. You can easily hold both collectivistic and individualistic world views. In fact, every measurement tool of individualism and collectivism reflects this. I would be happy to point you to numerous peer reviewed journal articles that demonstrate that the same people can endorse both collectivistic and individualistic cultural views simultaneously. PsychstudentUCLA (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivism and individualism are not opposites or othogonal 

message: Respectfully, I feel that this section is very weak. Collectivism is a cultural value, so to have a section called "culture" doesn't entirely make sense, conceptually. I think it would be worthwhile to have a section that summarizes findings between the cultural value of collectivism and outcomes within the fields of clinical psychology, social psychology, perception, and neuroscience. The information currently on the page can also be condensed and more accurately re-written so that information about economics and organizational structure are also included. But as is, this section seems to present not entirely correct information in a way that is difficult to understand. PsychstudentUCLA (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture section 

message: Hello, I am planning to make modifications to this page to improve the objectivity and focus of the topic. PsychstudentUCLA (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , it might help to outline some of thoughts and sources on this talk page in advance, in light of what I posted above czar 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

text: , good to have a plan, but what's more important is the sourcing you plan to use to expand in this way. The expansion will only be as strong as your bibliography, which is why it would be helpful to see that in advance of you putting in the effort. czar 04:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: About this edit, the section about collectivist anarchism is a summary. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Already I told that it's a summary of that article and it's WP:NOTABLE enough to be mentioned. I don't see a reason to exclude it out of the article. Please, elaborate the rationale if you think that it shouldn't be in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dab? 

message: 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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not ready for GA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Collectivization VS [[Enclosure]] 

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.146.161.101 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't the main definition of collectivism about group rights rather than individual rights? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Most of the new article is like that. See the talk page sections above this one. czar 02:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivism vs Individualism 

message: "Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self." 
Collectivists don't value the group over the self, they value the group over the individual. The difference is they disvalue both you placing greater worth on yourself than the group, and you placing greater worth on other individuals than the group. If Bob is in a collectivist group and proclaims that he values Sarah over the entire group, the group would ostracize him as he is no longer emphasizing group importance, even though he is not advocating for the worth of the self.
In the Individualism article the current definition, which I believe is much more accurate, reads "Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual." (I would also add "over the group" to the last bit, as you have plenty of collectivists who believe individuals have worth but that collective worth is far more important).
Can we change the first sentence to something like "Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the group over the individual?" Or at least change "self" to "individual" so the article is accurate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:1D10:6621:B510:5577 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better definition? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Everyone counts. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 24#Everyone counts until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Everyone counts" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This Marxism-Leninism section is very messy and poorly written. The outlines of some good ideas are buried in there, but the poor order of the sentences and general weakness of the second half makes it so that someone who doesn't already know the contents would have a nearly impossible time understanding it. I probably shouldn't complain, as someone took the time to write it and I won't to rewrite it right now, but please, if anyone has time to improve this article, that is where I would ask for attention.
Warr40 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism–Leninism