Talk:Society

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleSociety has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the use of trade in prehistoric society may have given humans an evolutionary advantage over Neanderthals?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK toolbox

(
)
  • ... that 14th century sociologist Ibn Khaldun described society as having two fundamental forms: nomadic and sedentary? Source: Khaldun, an Arab living in the 14th century, understood society, along with the rest of the universe, as having "meaningful configuration", with its perceived randomness attributable to hidden causes. Khaldun conceptualized social structures as having two fundamental forms: nomadic and sedentary. Nomadic life has high social cohesion (asabijja), which Khaldun argued arose from kinship, shared customs, and a shared need for defense. Sedentary life, in Khaldun's view, was marked by secularization, decreased social cohesion, and increased interest in luxury
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Of the universe (talk). Self-nominated at 04:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Society; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Recent GA in very good shape, I don't see any issues with sourcing, tone, or copyvio (excluding wikimirrors). The hook is cited and in the article but I think it could be more interesting. Is there anything zestier we can use? BuySomeApples (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, awesome job getting this to GA! This is a really important topic. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How about "Did you know that because human society features far more complex cooperation than bands of other primates, biologists including E.O. Wilson have argued that humans, like ants, are eusocial?" Of the universe (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better @Of the universe: but it's a bit wordy and might not be clear to most readers. Is there a way to simplify it and shorten it a bit? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much shorter, but maybe clearer to the casual reader: "Did you know that human society has far more complex cooperation than groups of other primates, leading some biologists to compare human sociability to eusocial insects like ants?" Of the universe (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a cornucopia of DYKable facts – we can do better!
  • ALT1c: ...that some biologists, observing society, place humans in the highest sociability category — and others disagree?
  • ALT2: ...that the word for society was derived from the Latin noun socius, meaning "friend"?
  • ALT3: ...that adults in hunter gatherer societies work three to five hours per day, leading to their designation as the "original affluent society"?
  • ALT4: ...that pastoral societies are more likely than hunter gatherer societies to have multiple communities, because they tend to develop in open areas where movement is easy, enabling political integration?
  • ALT5: ...that the use of trade in prehistoric society is thought to have given humans an evolutionary advantage over Neanderthals?
  • ALT6: ...that human societies with strong norms against violence have reduced the homicide rate from 2% of deaths (in prehistoric society) to 0.01%?
Take your pick! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's very helpful! Yeah, let's go with ALT4 -- Of the universe (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving all ALTs because they're cited, interesting and in the article (thank you @Sdkb:! AGF on ALT4 because I can't access the book right now. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2024
I have a question @Sdkb: should this article get approved, when would it appear on the Main Page? — Alex26337 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It varies, but typically between a week and a month. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human societies

[edit]

I notice that the collage (and to a lesser extent, the lead) includes non-human societies, whereas the body of the article is basically only about human society (the biology discussion mentions other animals, but only in comparison to humans). Is there another article that could be better-suited to discuss non-human society? I'd recommend placing an {{About}} hatnote for that at the top, and then focusing exclusively on human society here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this article should focus on human societies. I'm not sure whether non-human societies are really a notable subject? I didn't come across any discussion of that in all my reading for this article. I'll remove fish from the photos in the side bar. Cheers, Of the universe (say hello) 00:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

[edit]

Overall, I very much like the illustrations selected for this article. There are a few unillustrated sections where it seems we could probably fairly easily find good pictures, though. Namely, #Pastoral society, #Industrial society, #Gender and kinship (people doing an action associated with a traditional gender role), and #Conflict. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions! I added one for pastoral society, industrial society and gender and kinship (did family instead of gender). I'm not sure what to add for conflict. Cheers, Of the universe (say hello) 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried out a painting of Napoleon's retreat for that section, and made a few other image tweaks. They'll all need alt text if this goes toward FAC (which I hope it will!). Cheers, Sdkb talk 06:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge Social into Society for overlap; Social is unsuitable for a page, and a remnant of the early days of building Wikipedia. Klbrain (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATURAL and the other article is not the primary topic. Sources: Social Problems Readings with Four Questions ISBN 049500460X Electronic Constitution Social, Cultural, and Political Implications ISBN 1605662550 : @Raimundo57br, Xavier1824, and Luizpuodzius:168.195.24.223 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now the other title proposed for merge is social, which includes a mention of the Social Wars. I was also contemplating putting some mention in about the social wars, because it was at that time, around 100 BC, that it became a matter of life or death to know who was a socius, that is friend or ally, leading to the importance of the term societas where the concept of society originates. So I would support merging and adding something competent about that connection. 1948 Hgemengst (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Society, per WP:NOUN. Psychastes (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is completely perplexing: you want to merge Social War (91–87 BC), which is about a military conflict between the Roman Republic and its allies around 90 BC into an article on what a society is? They're completely unrelated. Ifly6 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an anonymous IP changed the proposal to include "Social wars" only shortly before you gave your response. I was only voting on the original proposal to merge "social", along with some additional explanation of the situation in the Social War, but the idea of merging the historical article here seems misguided. 1948 Hgemengst (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly reset this proposal to be for merging Social into Society, nothing else. That is, I've deleted the Merge tags from Social War (357–355 BC), Social War (220–217 BC) and Social War (91–87 BC) as absurd, and restored Social War to redirecting to Social Wars, a disambiguation page listing the three Social Wars and a novel. We don't need editors wasting any more time on that. NebY (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge Social to Society. Social is a remnant of the early days of building Wikipedia. It first began "The adjective "social" implies ... ", and though various editors have tried valiantly to make it comply with WP:NOTDICT, it remains an article about an adjective, with a digression into the history of socialism which is best left for that article. NebY (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]