Talk:Solidarity

message: Hi, This interesting article underlines the importance of common goals, whereas the french article underline the importance, for all of us, to accept the drawbacks created by (even) a single person.
* I then suggest the solidarity was just described as a cohesion phenomenon (main idea), and the different appliances of this idea in french (common drawbacks to be accepted) or english (common goals to be served) cultures were detailed into two specific remarks, thus pointing out two approaches of "socialism" instead of one, in the present article. 
What do you think ? Crocy 07:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main idea and appliances

message: Just to pre-empt any future debate - the table is adapted from Lukes (1973) but it is NOT a copyright violation - consider it like a quote, as long as it is properly referenced it is perfectly acceptable academic practice to use diagrams like this from other works. If I had made it up myself then it would be original research and then it would be unacceptable! Madmedea 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: I see this page developing into a general guide on the different theories of social solidarity. I've started the Durkheim section - would be great if other people who come across it and know about other social theorists add other sections. Madmedea 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article development

message: It is blatantly untrue that Marx did not write about the division of labor, so I removed this from the comment on Durkheim.
The best ref on this is Rob Beamish, Marx, Method, and the Division of Labor (Univ Illinois Press, 1992). 
Another is Ronald Hamowy, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, and the Division of Labor, Economica August 1968, 249-259. 
Marx builds upon Ferguson, eventually dialectically relating the division of labor with private property (the former, social, the latter, material) in The German Ideology (p 41, Beamish). Gsmcghee (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx on division of labor 

message: Looking for editor feedback on .  The deleter (78.34.195.139 (talk)) reverted my revert of his deletion.  I think it's a perfectly valid link on the disambig for Solidarity.  Please add your thoughts and/or revert the reverted revert if you want to be so bold.  I don't want to get into a revert war over this, since 78.... seems to feel strongly about this issue (per User_talk:Erielhonan#Solidarity_.28disambiguation.29). Erielhonan 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This constellation is not mentioned in the exceptions for piping and redirects in disambiguation pages according to WP:MOSDAB. Therefore, the mosdab general rule "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" applies. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got you now.  Perhaps if you'd explained that initially I'd have gotten your point then.  Clarity is a critical component of communication, but asking 'what gives?' in your first message and calling me a zombie in your second message did nothing to bring my attention to your legitimate concern. Erielhonan 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't even listening about that other legitimate concern, which I laid out at your talk page. I feel strongly about Huggle users who revert at reckless speed and who time and again erroneously revert valuable MoS-conforming edits because they don't care to ever do the most superficial examination of the edits they revert. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the feedback.  Have a nice day.  Erielhonan 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very welcome. Have a pleasant day. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social solidarity]] 

message: Hi, I don't know how to edit the main page, and wouldn't want to anyway in case I messed it up, but I wanted to mention that the name Aurora Levins Morales doesn't link to a wikipedia page, but Aurora Levins Morales does have a wikipedia page, so there could be a link there. Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.127.34 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, done! Please see Help:Contents for help with Wikipedia, editing can be quite easy and worth learning. :) djr13 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Aurora Levins Morales

message: Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: "Solidarity" has a strong Leftist connotation, yet the opening does not mention Leftism, socialism, communism, workers, etc., yet mentions Christians a number of times. It seems like if we are name checking Catholic Social teachings, its extreme prevalence in Workers Movements (Solidarity Forever must be the most popular union song of the 20th century) should be noted too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.144.136 (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlighting Leftist Connotation 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi everyone, my name is Euna and I'm working on a project in my bioethics class to edit the "Solidarty" article. Please let me know if there are any specific topics you would like to discuss regarding solidarity and bioethics.Eunacorn (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSUEB Bioethics Class 

message: Hello, the first line of the article says that solidarity "creat[es] a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes, which rejects the class conflict".
This is a kind of solidarity, but there are other non-universal types of solidarity. For example there's group solidarity (within a specific social group), class solidarity (within a social class) and racial solidarity (within a race group).
Please rewrite the article to explain this. --179.26.83.184 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class solidarity 

message: The article states: “Unlike collectivism, solidarism does not reject individuals and sees individuals as the basis of society.”
This is a common Red Menace tropes frequently parroted by opponents of collectivism.   Collectivism the realisation that self-interest is often best served by cooperation and solidarity.  This is a rejection of sociopathy not of the individual.  Every collectivist views individuals as the basis of society. 89.104.239.130 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Misrepresents Collectivism