Talk:Norm (sociology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Norm (sociology), or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy

This article makes a very poor attempt at trying to explain the use of norms in sociology and there are no references. Who has used the term 'norms' in sociology and why? --CJ 15:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Cultural Norm smerge? 2 Merger proposal 3 Is this article really representative of sociology? 4 What is the basis for this? 5 Not making sense

[edit] Cultural Norm smerge?

Hey. Could yall take a look at the cultural norm article and see if redirecting here, with or without a merge, would be appropriate? The Literate Engineer 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the redirect. No merging. Look at the history if you want.

[edit] Merger proposal

Merger? I think a better solution would be to convert convention (norm) into a dab page.All the single sentence definitions from that page should either be thrown away or embedded into relevant specialist pages. David91 16:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely wrong to merge the pages Convention (norm) and Norm (sociology), especially because conventions have a large, autonomous and important discussion in philosophy, which forbids that they are viewed exclusively from a sociological standpoint!! Velho 18:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, a convention in the sciences are spefic things that are NOT simply norms - and definately not social norms. Fresheneesz 23:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: See Norm (philosophy), where some of the material about methodological norms would fit. Jon Awbrey 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger in the direction presently proposed. The article Convention (norm) seems to have a broader scope than this one. The merger should be in the opposite direction. FilipeS 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article really representative of sociology?

The article is presently expressed in terms of "ego" and "alter". I have never seen these terms used in a similar context, and neither word appears in the article Sociology. "Ego" appears only once in Social psychology (sociology). I suggest that this ego/alter framework be eliminated from the structure-level of the article. At present, the top level begins with

• Overview
  • 1.1 Actions of Ego
  • 1.2 Ego’s Reactions to Actions of Alter
  • 1.3 Negotiations between ego and alter

This cannot be NPOV. Harold f (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is the basis for this?

I just deleted this text:

For example, the Jewish faith harbors many restrictions concerning the consumption of pork. These restrictions are a result of individuals associating pork with the disease trichinosis and changing their dietary habits accordingly. This practice and others like it become normative and therefore continue even when the original threat of disease is no longer evident.

I, being Jewish am more or less outraged by the fact that this individual could just add this to a Wikipedia article without any valid sources or citations to support his claim and I highly doubt he could either. It's bordering on ignorance and stereotyping, especially since there's alot of other animals that don't fall under the laws of Kashrut and for that matter I think the prohibition of eating pork (or camel, hare, alligator and various other wild game) greatly predates any knowledge in the medical field of trichinosis and it certainly is not incorporated into Judaic Law based on such an asinine, anachronistic reason as this. It's like saying people go to pray in a Church, Synagogue or Mosque or any other house of worship because it was associated with being harbored from the toxic fumes of factories during the Industrial Revolution (or something similar thereof) and ever since has been part of the ritual routine.

Ignorance and outlandish claims have no place in Wikipedia or any Encyclopedia, digital or printed.

-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not making sense

I refer to the following part:

For a simple example, driving is common throughout the world, but in some countries people drive on the right and in other countries people drive on the left (see coordination game).

Driving on the left or right side is restricted by law, not norms. Using game theory to analyze this seems far-fetched, no?

Seriousj (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)