Talk:Community

	Community was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed August 4, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 13, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept November 17, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Sociology Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 13 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Community (social unit). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

I am studying an MSc Social Justice and community action, our topic right now is online commuities and Wikipedia. Our task is to review and contribute to the 'Community' article.

Having thoughts on additions to the 'internet community' section.

I am thinking we could mention Wikipedia as a community of collaborative production.

Also, I think we could add some content which is more positive in its outlook of online communities - more than weaker bonds, stalking and remaining anonymous e.g. the benefits to certain groups/movements, and also we need some more references.

• Mscsj12 shall we draft together?
• Rheglasgow (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
• LeoRomero (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC) - @Mscs12 and Rheglasgow: Welcome! Sorry i just saw your note. I'm happy to help. In the past week, i've been trying to clean up what's already here - improving upon previous work. But do what you think is best for the article - you don't need anyone's permission here. If you need help on anything, just {{ping}} me. - Thanks; LeoReply

PS: I'd been using the to do list at the top of the page to keep track of what I'd been doing to complete the tasks left by earlier contributors - might be a good way for us to coordinate - LeoRomero (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think the definition in the first paragraph of the page is quite a good one. Any thoughts on whether it covers everything relating to the terms abiguity? Could there be a section dedicated to it's varied use in the political field? Garysweir (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good idea 👍 197.157.231.74 (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Community (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Link 18 in the notes is not working anymore 2001:16B8:A4D3:C01:C4EF:A4F4:358A:A3FF (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reporting this; I have added a ""dead link" note. It's possible that an editor may be able to find an archived copy of the original page somewhere. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Definitions

Unit Oneness, singularity, seen as a component of a whole number; a magnitude of one.

Social Social refers to the interaction of people and other organisms with each other, and to their collective co-existence.

Community A community is a social unit (a group of living things) with commonality such as place, norms, religion, values, customs, or identity.

Conclusion from definitions

In definition of community two opposite words are used together "social unit".Plural is the opposite of singular and are not same.

Social becomes plural with the presence of people in its definition."People" are plural form of person.Social as a plurality word can't be used with a singularity word "unit".A word can't be singular as well as plural at the same time as for defining a word "community".

In place of social there be a singularity word as "individual" suitable with the word "unit".Together to be written as "individual unit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.152.170 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is incorrect. There are many words that refer to a multitude as singular. “Multitude,” in fact, being an example; likewise, “group,” “team,” and “herd.” In fact, it may be impossible to divide anything down to singularity (at least, at the utilitarian scale of our Newtonian reality); an individual human comprises billions of cells, none of which can be regarded as identical to another and many of which are of diverse species! *A* community (singular) is a perfectly valid concept, especially so when used to contrast it with another. Neuroglider (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The section on semantics (under “Perspectives of various disciplines”) emphasizes a characterization of “community” as illegitimate and exploitative, suggesting that mutual well-being, happiness, and togetherness are either themselves illegitimate societal goals or that these are never the sincere objectives of politicians. In fact, the relative interest in organizing society around these goals may be the essence of the political spectrum; the right emphasizes individuality and the left encourages mutual benevolence. The latter is rooted in philosophies which recognize the modalities in which all people (all life forms, perhaps) are connected and interdependent. The dynamic tension between this sentiment versus concern for the individual is likely useful in preventing extremism that could be destabilizing. Therefore, community-oriented societal structures are valuable and represent reasonable goals of politicians (who need not be “populists”). Advertising is a very different matter (albeit a component of capitalism, which has directionality regarding the political spectrum), and I would prefer that it be separated from the topic of political connotations. Neuroglider (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Think of your argument as a political ecosystem where "community" isn't a trap, but a vital organ. Here is the "unique" take on your perspective:

• The Pulse of the Spectrum: Instead of seeing the Left and Right as enemies, you frame them as a biological tension. The Right acts as the "cell wall" (protecting the individual), while the Left acts as the "connective tissue" (ensuring the whole body survives). Both are required for a stable organism.
• Reclaiming the "We": You’re stripping the "fake" label off togetherness. You argue that wanting people to be happy and connected isn't just fluffy talk or "populism"—it’s a mechanical necessity for a functioning civilization.
• The Firewall: You’ve built a mental "firewall" between Civic Community and Commercial Community. You’re saying: "Don't blame the concept of friendship just because a brand tried to sell you a soda using a picture of friends." One is a sincere human goal; the other is just a transaction.

In essence, you’re arguing that interdependence is a fact of nature, and a healthy society is simply one that stops pretending otherwise. Katheran0 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)Reply