Talk:Social issue

message: They are, Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda's sociology book, Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. and Donileen R. Loseke's Thinking about social problems: an introduction to constructionist perspectives.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sources Wikipedians can use to expand the article 

message: "Global issue" seems more informal, and seems pretty much like a more specialized (globalization-related) type of social issue/problem. But since globalization is a very broad term, I doubt there is any meaningful difference between those two topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose. I suggest that Global issue be focused on describing historical and present efforts by notable authorities on the most important social issues for the world. On the other hand, I suggest that Social issue be focused on social issues as sociological phenomena, with research on how problems come to be identified and defined as social issues through media and public discourse, and means of categorizing and distinguishing them. See my related proposal below. Daask (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Which issue is global and not social? Opposite of global is strictly local. I don't think separating those topic would help much. What could exist in global issues articles that wouldn't also exist here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read my above response more carefully. Indeed, I recognize that much, if not all, of Global issue is about social issues, but I'm suggesting keeping separate claims about the most important social problems in articles like Most important social problems in the United States or Most important global issues from the article Social issue, which I would like to preserve as about the sociological study of social issues as such.   In that case, there would be no overlap at all. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to propose a rename of Global issue to Most important global issues. Daask (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that starts Most important...... begs the question, most important to whom ? Articles that incorporate value judgements in their title always appear to be flawed in their logic and are difficult to construct without bias and POV. Best of luck with your endeavours.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was imagining a catalogue of lists determined by major international organizations and United Nations agencies. A good collection is found in  I don't know Wikipedia policy or guidelines on such articles, but I think they can be valuable. Daask (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having some sort of starting point is good, provided that there is consensus about what that starting point should be. I cannot imagine that much support would gather around McLaren's work however. It might be simpler starting with a :List of social issues and accepting only those where there is a direct quote of "xxxxxx is a social issue" in one of the most reliable and respected sources (i.e not the Daily Mail or Fox News or their equivalents elsewhere in the world).  Generating a reliable sourced list would then allow expansion into more detail, always provided that the sourcing was of the highest quality - I suspect we need something like WP:MEDRS but for social issues. Some time ago I suggested, on this page, that the article should be deleted because it was simply a home for anyone's pet hates and bigotry. To be recreated, it will need a much more robust platform to start from. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

text: "Most important" is indeed a terrible idea per reasons stated above (editorializing). We can have a list of social issues, without judging which is major and which is not; Wikipedia policy requires verifiability, after all (see WP:V and keep in mind we have to be careful of WP:NOR). Regarding the US issues, this is also discussed above and I think a simple split would be a simple solution. My point is, as was  before, that there is no need for us to have a separate article on global vs social. We can have separate lists of social issues by country/scope etc., but the theoretical concept of social issue is only one, and global issue is just a poor synonym or worse, a useless catchphrase and should not exist outside a redirect here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Sociology is very broad, and many issues are interdisciplinary. Environmental issues are within the scope of sociology (Environmental sociology), ditto for economic issues (economic sociology, socioeconomy). Not sure what agricultural personal issues would be; of course a discussion of which type of fertilizer is better (which seems to be a purely agricultural issue) but not be a sociological issue, but at the same time I doubt the very concept of such agricultural issues would be notable at all. Social issues are notable because the very term is often used in social sciences; there is an entire book series called "Encyclopedia of Social Issues" which would make a great source for this, there are plenty of definitions we could cite (, ), the term has over million hits on Google books , compare to agricultural issues which gets 50k and as a term is unlikely to be defined anywhere). So I certainly think this term is correct and notable (even if the article is currently a poor, half-OR mess). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

text: strong oppose. The core issues go far beyond the fuzzy social realm. They affect us and our environment. Severely. Overpopulation - the central source of all the problems - is nothing that you earnestly wanted to discuss in social science context only. We are not talking about "felt" or "perceived" or "relative" problems. They are absolute and will eventually affect all life on the entire planet. -- Kku (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Global issue]] 

message: Including several topics found in "Other issues" under topics in "Types" would better organize these issues. For instance, "Education and public schools" (of "Types") can include the "Other issues" topics of "education,"lack of literacy and numeracy," "school truancy," and "violence and bullying in school." Moreover, the title of the "Education and public schools" topic within "Types" should be edited to solely "Education," given that these topics are also apparent in private schools. There are other connections that can be made between the various topics under "Other issues" and "Types." I simply provided these examples.Rbatista18 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to include some topics from "Other issues" to appropriate topics under "Types" 

message: The main tenet of sociology is that we should be able understand personal issues in light of the structural and historical factors that contribute to them, and vice versa.  For any personal issue, C. Wright Mills would have us consider where and when the personal issue has arisen, and then ask three questions:  (1) What is the structure of this particular society as a whole? (2) Where does this society stand in human history? and (3) What varieties of men and women now prevail in this society and in this period? These questions help identify the sources of what seem like personal issues in the social conditions that give rise to them. IvyKen (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a Introduction,body,conclusion 112.198.194.108 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise "Personal Issue" section 

message: — Assignment last updated by Sky1405 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English Composition 1102