Welcome to Wikipedia, YTausczik! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
MartinPoulter and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi YTausczik,
I wanted to fill you in on why I reverted your edits on the social identity theory page. These were some of the issues that concerned me:
- I think a reference would be needed for the claim that “Social identity theory first proposed that people come to understand and define themselves, in part, as members of social groups”. After all, the term “social identity” predates SIT.
- I do not think it is true that “Social identity theory is narrowly concerned with how concrete groups affect peoples' thoughts and behaviors” and the reference you use does not support this claim.
- I also do not think it is true that “ self-categorization theory is concerned with how even broad abstract groups or categories (e.g. all women) can affect peoples' thoughts and behaviour”. Can you provide an appropriate reference?
- The fact that sometimes “people treat members of their group more favourably” is not a "finding" of SIT. Instead, SIT was created, in part, to explain that finding.
- Structurally, I do not think that the development of the theory should come prior to the description of the theory. Do you have a good rationale for this?
I am of course happy to discuss these points with you, but did feel that revision was warrented in this case. Cheers Andrew ( talk) 06:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, YTausczik! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
MartinPoulter and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MartinPoulter ( talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi YTausczik,
I wanted to fill you in on why I reverted your edits on the social identity theory page. These were some of the issues that concerned me:
- I think a reference would be needed for the claim that “Social identity theory first proposed that people come to understand and define themselves, in part, as members of social groups”. After all, the term “social identity” predates SIT.
- I do not think it is true that “Social identity theory is narrowly concerned with how concrete groups affect peoples' thoughts and behaviors” and the reference you use does not support this claim.
- I also do not think it is true that “ self-categorization theory is concerned with how even broad abstract groups or categories (e.g. all women) can affect peoples' thoughts and behaviour”. Can you provide an appropriate reference?
- The fact that sometimes “people treat members of their group more favourably” is not a "finding" of SIT. Instead, SIT was created, in part, to explain that finding.
- Structurally, I do not think that the development of the theory should come prior to the description of the theory. Do you have a good rationale for this?
I am of course happy to discuss these points with you, but did feel that revision was warrented in this case. Cheers Andrew ( talk) 06:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)