Jump to content

Talk:Social question

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

short definition & illustration (Punch Magazine, Mai 1843)

[edit]

(1) You should add (on TOP!) a short definition as given by - for example - Alice Salomon or Frank E. W. Zschaler (MUST READ!):

  • The term social question denotes the opposition between capital and labour. (conflict between capital and labor)

(2) There is a caricature that is suitable to illustrate this short definition:

(Available on commons.wikimedia, but in poor quality: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Punch_1843_-_Reichtum_und_Armut.png)

(3) Furthermore you should add the definition given by Hans von Scheel in: Die Theorie der sozialen Frage. (Jena 1871), page 16, because this definition is universal / timeless:

  • The social question is the contradiction between reality and social idea - (from that moment on) society became aware of it.

You will find compact information on the following website:

https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/Industrielle_Revolution#Definition_Soziale_Frage

--2001:16B8:C395:EA00:C9DC:DC8C:4470:C39 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done to stop the vandalism by the User:MRN2electricboogaloo?

[edit]
  1. Direct Quote from http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Social_question&oldid=1261517277#cite_note-2

    [...] The social question is back. Yet, today’s social question is not primarily between labor and capital, as it was in the nineteenth century and throughout much of the twentieth. The contemporary social question is located at the interstices between the global South and the global North. [...]

  2. See in this context ("today’s social question" = Social Question in the Twenty-First Century):
    1. Google (en): https://www.google.com/search?q=Social+Question+in+the+Twenty-First+Century
    2. Google (de): https://scholar.google.de/scholar?q=Soziale+Frage+im+21.+Jahrhundert&hl=de
    3. Google (fr): https://www.google.com/search?q=%22question+sociale+au+21%C3%A8me+si%C3%A8cle%22
  3. See also https://www.un.org/en/desa/inequality-%E2%80%93-defining-challenge-our-time

Sorry, but i don't want to waste my time with a bad faith troll (Vandalism_on_Wikipedia).

Social question: Difference between revisions: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Social_question&diff=1261571339&oldid=1261517277

--2001:16B8:C3AB:9E00:BD6D:C0A5:5EFD:3F86 (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This is kinda beside the point, but this isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute.
  2. You are making the claim that the social question is a term used to refer to "the opposition between capital and labor" and that it is another word for Economic inequality, but out of the many sources you have provided, the only one that reads to me as making a claim anywhere close to that is the work of Frank E. and W. Zschaler which is only one source. You made three points for your claim in this message, or rather provided three sources and didn't really elaborate, and I believe none of them actually back you up
    1. The quote you pulled says that the social question of the 19th and 20th century was "primarily between labor and capital" not that it is the opposition of labor and capital. Having read the English translation of the abstract, I believe that it is saying that the social question was derived from the opposition of labor and capital, not that it is another term for it. The rest of the abstract also conflicts with the Social Question in the Twenty-First Century" section, as it seems to be about how the modern social question is different from the 19th and 20th century social question, being "located at the interstices between the global South and the global North"
    2. The first thing that pops up for me on the English google search is [this listing https://www.ucpress.edu/books/the-social-question-in-the-twenty-first-century/paper] for The Social Question in the Twenty-First Century. The first sentence of the "about the book" section states: "Want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness: first recognized together in mid-nineteenth-century Europe, these are the focus of the Social Question." Based on this, I'd say the social question is quite different from just another term for economic inequality.
    3. That UN article does not even contain the words "social question". This is the second time you've used it as proof for your claim that the social question is another term for inequality, a claim the article very clearly does not make.
  3. The "Social Question in the Twenty-First Century" section has to go. It has 4 sources, none of which even contain the words "social question". Its existence is pure WP:SYNTH (I think, maybe a different policy applies. It's bad either way). And beyond that the way it's written clearly violates WP:NPOV
  4. This is not really a good argument, but I skimmed through the articles that link to this one and based on how they use it I definitely believe it's something more than just another word economic inequality. And if it was just another word for economic inequality, the article, in its current state, could probably just be merged into economic inequality.
  5. This article exists in 9 other languages, and as far as I can tell, none of them define it as just another term for economic inequality
MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo - well, step by step:
Elsewhere (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Social_question), I recommended that you try out this tool:
( GPT-4o mini // Claude 3 Haiku // Llama 3.1 70B // Mixtral 8x7B )
Please enter the following task there: ==> definition "Social Question" (Use all 4 chat models, please.)
Then repeat this with the following task: ==> definition "Social Question in the Twenty-First Century"
What is the result?
Have you read the publication by Alexander Fuks: Plato and the Social Question.?
http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Politeia#cite_note-73
Do you really believe, that Plato used the term "social question"??? --2001:16B8:C392:6F00:500F:D8C5:6444:B08A (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo (II) -- Please also note the following fact:

https://www.kas.de/documents/252038/253252/Zschaler.pdf#page=07
(translated from German into English)
[...] In Great Britain, the "social question" was not understood as a workers' or family issue, but rather as a question of poverty. The term "social question" did not become a standard term. Instead, people referred to "social problems," "social pathology," or "social disorganization." These metaphors were used to describe the social upheavals of the time, initially focusing on poverty, but also addressing related issues such as alcoholism, crime, slum housing, the destruction of families, as well as the conditions in the factories of early industrialization, etc.
In 1902, the English publicist and capitalism-critical economist John Atkinson Hobson (1858–1940) responded to the question of whether there is a "social question": "The inevitable vagueness of the social question has so strongly impressed the general imagination that few can believe there must be an answer to it, or that the so-called question can be put into a reasonable form at all... the scholar who seeks precision through exact specialization denies that there is a social question." [...]

--2001:16B8:C3A6:3F00:69DC:2672:9DF:FC4F (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a passerby here but you should be aware that large language models are considered unreliable both as sources and as generators of text on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI Chatbots are not a good source, but I decided to ask them the questions you told me to and they basically all said something to the effect of "The social question refers to a broad range of issues such as (list of issues)". I.E it does not support the claim that the social question is another term for economic inequality. Nor does the passage you translated here, which says that the term, and other similar ones, "were used to describe the social upheavals of the time". Since this passage is from the only source in the article that I thought could back up the "social question in another term for economic inequality" claim, I am going to remove that from the article. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo -- I strongly recommend that you read scientific literature (!) before you tamper with this article:
--2001:16B8:C3A6:3F00:C9F0:AAF6:CC17:FB44 (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results aren't in themselves reliable sources. There may well be RSes among the results but they need to be identified individually to be used as wikipedia sources.
As for the other sources you've used, they don't seem to support such a specific definitoon. For example, Piketty writes "Chapter 2 looks first at inequality between capital and labor, a fundamental inequality that has deeply influenced the analysis of the social question since the nineteenth century." This means that inequality is only an influence on or part of the social question, not identical with it. Hi! (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

direct quote from Karl Marx

[edit]

This is a direct quote from Karl Marx: Critique of the Gotha Programme:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch03.htm
After the Lassallean "iron law of wages", the physic of the prophet. The way to it is "paved" in worthy fashion. In place of the existing class struggle appears a newspaper scribbler's phrase: "the social question", to the "solution" of which one "paves the way".
Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the "socialist organization of the total labor" "arises" from the "state aid" that the state gives to the producers' co-operative societies and which the state, not the workers, "calls into being". It is worthy of Lassalle's imagination that with state loans one can build a new society just as well as a new railway! [...]

--2001:16B8:C3A6:3F00:C9F0:AAF6:CC17:FB44 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Marx says the social question is another term for class struggle, or something along those lines. That should go in the article somewhere, maybe even in the lede since he is a pretty big deal, but that does not mean "The term social question denotes the opposition between capital and labour (also described as the gap between rich and poor)." Firstly, economic inequality and class struggle are two different things. Secondly, it's not the only definition or interpretation of social question, as can be seen in the second sentence of the article.
Also you have yet to explain how the Social Question in the Twenty-First Century section is anything more than pure WP:SYNTH.
Also I'm going to request a third opinion (WP:3O) since neither of us have gotten anywhere. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo: As I mentioned at the beginning: You are clearly a bad faith troll (Vandalism_on_Wikipedia):
The above-mentioned Google search leads to ==> Class_conflict
In political science, the term class conflict or class struggle refers to the economic antagonism and political tension that exist among social classes because of clashing interests, competition for limited resources, and inequalities of power in the socioeconomic hierarchy. In its simplest manifestation, class conflict refers to the ongoing battle between the rich and poor. --2001:16B8:C3A6:3F00:C9F0:AAF6:CC17:FB44 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so "class conflict" and "opposition between capital and labour" mean the same thing. Cool. That's not what you wrote in the article. In the lede of the article you write that "opposition between capital and labour" and "the gap between the rich and poor" are the same, which is completely different. Frankly I'm not even sure what the argument you're trying to make here is, both in this specific reply and this whole argument. All you post Google links, chatbots, quotes, and short kinda condescending sentences. That's not how you should argue. The quotes would be great if you explained your reasoning but you don't. You haven't explained your reasoning ever, through this whole argument. You have yet to even defend your reasoning for the inclusion of the Social Question in the Twenty-First Century section, which is probably the most egregious part of this article. Please explain, in your own words, why you believe that the sources of the Social Question in the Twenty-First Century section, despite not containing the words "social question", back up the content. Don't just send a link to Google or a chatbot, or just post a quote, explain your reasoning. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I highly recommend creating an account (it's easy and free) instead of editing across at least 3 different IPs MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo (In the lede of the article you write that "opposition between capital and labour" and "the gap between the rich and poor" are the same, which is completely different.) -- Really?? (OMG: You make me laugh.) - In the current version of the article, there is a footnote (Thomas Piketty (2015): The Economics of Inequality, page 27 http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Social_question&oldid=1261699844#cite_note-3):
<sarcasm>Hurry up, you absolutely have to let him know - still today - that he is completely wrong. </sarcasm> --2001:16B8:C3B8:2700:D4E8:4EA9:BC0F:F8B0 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I have no clue what you're saying. My best guess is that you're trying to tell me that when you wrote "opposition between capital and labour" you meant opposition in the sense of contrast/difference not conflict. I wouldn't have to make these guesses if you spent your time actually explaining yourself instead of being uncivil. I'll ask again, please explain why you believe that the sources of the Social Question in the Twenty-First Century section back up said section, despite not containing the words "social question". Oh and also just like explain to me the introduction, does opposition mean conflict or contrast? MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MRN2electricboogaloo (not containing the words "social question"): I am now very sure that you have not read a single scientific publication on the topic of 'Social Question.' (By the way: You need to justify why you want changes and provide evidence for that desire! In other words: You have to give reasons!! - That is the rule!!!)
There is no doubt that the term 'Social Question' was completely unknown in ancient times, but there are numerous (many many) publications on this topic:
Because the term 'Social Question' has the same meaning as inequality = "opposition between capital and labour" (see caricature in Punch Magazine, Mai 1843: CAPITAL AND LABOR, see also the above-mentioned quote from Karl Marx. --2001:16B8:C38B:1400:B84A:8CB5:5A1D:7CC7 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that caricature, and that Marx quote. Neither say "The Social Question is the same thing as inequality". The caricature, like a bit more than a quarter of this articles sources, does not contain the words "social question" and therefore cannot be used to argue that it means the same thing as inequality. The Marx quote, if I'm interpreting this correctly, is saying that the social question was just a term used by writers to avoid talking about class struggle. As I've stated previously, Marx is not the definitive source on the social question, and class struggle and economic inequality are not the same thing.
And if the term social question did have the same meaning as inequality, then this page shouldn't exist. In it's current state at least it would just be a WP:CFORK. Well, if you ignore the paragraphs that talk about the term as if it's not just another word for inequality. Because it is.
Also, if we assume it is another word for inequality, the "Social Question in the Twenty-First Century" is still very poorly written. If you wrote "The European Union is focused on reducing inequality. The United States is focused on increasing inequality" elsewhere on Wikipedia with those sources you'd be reverted in a heartbeat. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use something as a cite on wikipedia you'll have to find quotes from reliable sources that use the words "social question". The Punch cartoon doesn't qualify, for instance, because those words don't appear in it. Hi! (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @User:Oort1

[edit]

@User:Oort1 (reply to this edit, here, because it is not possible to implement a table there):

You didn't really read the article, <fr> n'est-ce pas ? </fr> Please compare the search results from Google with the References section. The result is: only a few hits (from the first result-page only!!) of the Google search ""social question" (ca. 55.600 results) were included as footnotes in the article. The majority of the linked footnotes are behind a paywall:

footnote# User have to pay
fn #5 16,05 Euro
fn #7 309,23 Euro
fn #8 30,00 Euro
fn #9 24.00 Euro
fn #10) 1,00 $
fn #11 34.00 Euro
Sum = round about 415 Euro

You should be ashamed to the core (!): People (Wikipedia user) definitely do NOT need Wikipedia to spend their money. --2001:16B8:C39F:D600:4D1B:848E:C9EF:20D8 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info @ all

[edit]

--2001:16B8:C3B6:7E00:FC06:CFF6:CC5:809C (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_question&oldid=1263540948"