Talk:Solidarity

This article contains a translation of Солидарность from ru.wikipedia.

This article contains a translation of Solidaarisuus from fi.wikipedia.

This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Community (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Community, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CommunityWikipedia:WikiProject CommunityTemplate:WikiProject CommunityCommunity articles Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eunacorn. Peer reviewers: Cajjen12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This interesting article underlines the importance of common goals, whereas the french article underline the importance, for all of us, to accept the drawbacks created by (even) a single person.

• I then suggest the solidarity was just described as a cohesion phenomenon (main idea), and the different appliances of this idea in french (common drawbacks to be accepted) or english (common goals to be served) cultures were detailed into two specific remarks, thus pointing out two approaches of "socialism" instead of one, in the present article.

What do you think ? Crocy 07:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pre-empt any future debate - the table is adapted from Lukes (1973) but it is NOT a copyright violation - consider it like a quote, as long as it is properly referenced it is perfectly acceptable academic practice to use diagrams like this from other works. If I had made it up myself then it would be original research and then it would be unacceptable! Madmedea 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this page developing into a general guide on the different theories of social solidarity. I've started the Durkheim section - would be great if other people who come across it and know about other social theorists add other sections. Madmedea 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jurgen Habermas

it would be useful to add to this page different religious traditions of solidarity - which are quite different from labor/socialist imaginaries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sara.koopman (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly untrue that Marx did not write about the division of labor, so I removed this from the comment on Durkheim.

The best ref on this is Rob Beamish, Marx, Method, and the Division of Labor (Univ Illinois Press, 1992).

Another is Ronald Hamowy, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, and the Division of Labor, Economica August 1968, 249-259.

Marx builds upon Ferguson, eventually dialectically relating the division of labor with private property (the former, social, the latter, material) in The German Ideology (p 41, Beamish). Gsmcghee (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for editor feedback on [1]. The deleter (78.34.195.139 (talk)) reverted my revert of his deletion. I think it's a perfectly valid link on the disambig for Solidarity. Please add your thoughts and/or revert the reverted revert if you want to be so bold. I don't want to get into a revert war over this, since 78.... seems to feel strongly about this issue (per User_talk:Erielhonan#Solidarity_.28disambiguation.29). Erielhonan 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This constellation is not mentioned in the exceptions for piping and redirects in disambiguation pages according to WP:MOSDAB. Therefore, the mosdab general rule "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" applies. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got you now. Perhaps if you'd explained that initially I'd have gotten your point then. Clarity is a critical component of communication, but asking 'what gives?' in your first message and calling me a zombie in your second message did nothing to bring my attention to your legitimate concern. Erielhonan 01:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't even listening about that other legitimate concern, which I laid out at your talk page. I feel strongly about Huggle users who revert at reckless speed and who time and again erroneously revert valuable MoS-conforming edits because they don't care to ever do the most superficial examination of the edits they revert. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the feedback. Have a nice day. Erielhonan 01:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Have a pleasant day. --78.34.195.139 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know how to edit the main page, and wouldn't want to anyway in case I messed it up, but I wanted to mention that the name Aurora Levins Morales doesn't link to a wikipedia page, but Aurora Levins Morales does have a wikipedia page, so there could be a link there. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.127.34 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, done! Please see Help:Contents for help with Wikipedia, editing can be quite easy and worth learning. :) djr13 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Solidarity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 14:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Solidarity" has a strong Leftist connotation, yet the opening does not mention Leftism, socialism, communism, workers, etc., yet mentions Christians a number of times. It seems like if we are name checking Catholic Social teachings, its extreme prevalence in Workers Movements (Solidarity Forever must be the most popular union song of the 20th century) should be noted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.144.136 (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hebdo-Monza.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, my name is Euna and I'm working on a project in my bioethics class to edit the "Solidarty" article. Please let me know if there are any specific topics you would like to discuss regarding solidarity and bioethics.Eunacorn (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the first line of the article says that solidarity "creat[es] a psychological sense of unity of groups or classes, which rejects the class conflict".

This is a kind of solidarity, but there are other non-universal types of solidarity. For example there's group solidarity (within a specific social group), class solidarity (within a social class) and racial solidarity (within a race group).

Please rewrite the article to explain this. --179.26.83.184 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: “Unlike collectivism, solidarism does not reject individuals and sees individuals as the basis of society.”

This is a common Red Menace tropes frequently parroted by opponents of collectivism. Collectivism the realisation that self-interest is often best served by cooperation and solidarity. This is a rejection of sociopathy not of the individual. Every collectivist views individuals as the basis of society. 89.104.239.130 (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]