Talk:Social control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social control article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 Social control, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Tom Rushton, You added the following sentence: "These are usually enforced more regularly than informal social control and those that do not abide by these guidelines are usually punished directly". This does not strike me intuitively as a true statement and I wonder what authority you might find for it. It is a commonplace that formal rules are often ignored while informal rules are defined by their inforcement, i.e. an uninforced formal rule simply doesn't exist. Fred Bauder 11:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Links 2 Bias? Personal opinion? 3 standard sociology 4 standard sociology 5 Edmund Burke 6 Medias??? 7 No mention of religion 8 No mention of 1984 9 Neutrality check 10 WikiProject class rating

[edit] Links

There are two links on this page. One is not available and ultimately leads to a rather amateurish homepage. The other is available but contains no valuable content (for an encycl.) at all. Remove both? 134.106.199.96

[edit] Bias? Personal opinion?

This article is bursting to the seam with POV. It's mostly speculation, opinion, and conspiratorial. Someone neutralize this thing because this article's just got too much color for its own good.--NeantHumain 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

///////////

Ha Ha. Neanthuman, from looking at your profile, I would hazard that you yourself are the best evidence of what this article is talking about. I mean, jeez, you are a young, well educated, malleable, groupthink, rightwing democrat, pseudoLiberal, twentysomething. Egads, you are what destroyed the promise of the Internet. Talk about a creature of overclass propaganda. MeatPuppetry to the max!

Well, I sure hope someone has the time to stave off your destruction of this fine article, because it is nice to see a little truth here and there in this world.

--cryofan

Sorry Cryofan, this page is definitely biased, and you attacking someone with your opinion of their social or political background is not going to cover that up. I have marked this page (which is certainly not a "fine article" at this point) as it obviously needs serious alteration. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] standard sociology

This article is pretty much standard introduction to sociology material. It could use a good edit to refer to some of the other theories of power and control in society (there are many).

129.10.79.81 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Judy Perrolle

[edit] standard sociology

This article is pretty much standard introduction to sociology material. It could use a good edit to refer to some of the other theories of power and control in society (there are many.) im new to this page and i would like to ask whether the writer of this article could not include more information on the overt and covert goals of social control?

[edit] Edmund Burke

The article should have a note on Edmund Burke's thoughts on this. -- 201.51.228.217 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medias???

Media is already plural. "Several intellectual figures such as Noam Chomsky have argued on the existence of systematic bias in modern medias." And shouldn't it be "reasoned about..."? Argued on? --Christofurio 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of religion

Nice article but I am suprised that there is no mention of the first, best and most popular form of social control - religion. Waffle247 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You summed that up rather nicely! However, we can't include that information in the article because of what would happen if everyone found out what religion is REALLY about. Seriously though, there should be a giant wikipedia article devoted to this issue. Afterall, people tend to forget that this was one of the major reasons that the USA even exists today instead of being a possession or part of the U.K. [1] --Wisepiglet 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm.. yes well as I'm English I'll just say that I'm quite happy the USA isn't related to the UK anymore too. Waffle247 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of 1984

Sorry, but said book is probably the most influential work ever to be written on this topic. Mention it. (69.29.26.85 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Neutrality check

I've had a look at this from the point of view of the article's sociological content. I've also read the comments above about bias. We need to remember that the subject is "social control." A question to be asked is: "if a society or agency is going to control people how can it do that?" The article illustrates some of the mechanisms of social control. Although not complete, it is a pretty fair intro to the field of social control. Edits since the tag was placed have removed the POV statements. I'm going to take the neutrality tag off the article. I will start adding sources. That should further improve the article and make its neutrality more transparent. Sunray 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)