Talk:Social commentary

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social commentary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Literature High‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contemporary

Is Michael Moore really the only contemporary social commentator people can include here? To me comparing this conspiracy theorist to Marx and Locke borders on sacrilege. It definitely gives off more 'blogger' than 'encyclopedia' vibes, which is not wanted. Joffeloff 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is far from exhaustive, and trying to fill it will probably require the inclusion of a considerable proportion of the people who have wikipedia articles. I included Moore on the list as I cited him as an example of a commentator who has used the medium of film/television in the main body of the article.

Personally I think as a commentator he's pretty poor, but he's reached a large section of the english-speaking world. If there is a better example in both scope, reach and quality then please edit the article accordingly.

What I would be opposed to would be a race to include every famous social commentator, contempory or otherwise, on this page's list. Such a project would best be suited to a List of social commentators page which would be organised by the commentators' scope, medium, and/or era. LukeSurl 09:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some external links... or some sources cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.149.21 (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woman Are Sexy

I would like to put forth the recommendation of some sexy women on the list of social commentators, and add some representative works. Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird" is the only work discussed, and there are many more to choose from. Some proposed names would be sexy Kate Chopin, The Awakening, or Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin. These examples are all literary in nature, but the point stands. Shmosie (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wildly inaccurate

Social Commentary, by the very definition of the word "social" can not and is not related to "rebelling against and individual" at all. The current page is wildly inaccurate and requires heavy editing. It rebels rather infrequently and never against an individual. Social commentary is exactly what the roots of the phrase suggest: A commentary (as in, a personal viewpoint expressed in narrative) on society (in part or in whole).

Laizurkainon (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet section needs a rewrite

if not just a nice, flat-out deletion. The second paragraph I’m thinking of deleting in particular. Perhaps, one could find sources to more accurately depict the relationship between social commentary and the web (rather than these biased, soapbox-y claims). But a casual google search of those two terms together suggests that it’s not going to be particularly easy. Barely made one (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in 2006 (!) and has never had a reliable source. I've removed the second paragraph, as it added nothing. The first is also bad, but compared to the rest of the article, it doesn't seem like a pressing issue. If you want to delete/rewrite it with a source, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]