Talk:In-group and out-group

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In-group and out-group 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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 1 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gadishu. Peer reviewers: NMajor2019, Speka3, Arblanks.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article "Outgroup (sociology)" to here?

Outgroup (sociology) should be merged into the accompanying article, which should perhaps be retitled to Ingroup and outgroups. Even if it isn't true that "there's no outgroup without an ingroup" (or even the reverse), the two are so closely related that they should be discussed together if convenient. In fact, they can fit together on a single screen. If they need to be split later, it'll probably be easier to build them up to that point as a single article, and the roughly 30 edits on Ingroup, and 20 on Outgroup, over their 5-year+ existences, suggest slow growth.
--Jerzy•t 00:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded: I'd redirect Outgroup to Ingroup, leaving the name unchanged. Both are virtual stubs now, and in all extant theories both are discussed where one is.

Tim bates (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no reply for over a year, so acted on this

Tim bates (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Outgroup" be a DAB or redir rather than a cladistics article?

Outgroup is presently an article on classifying species, IMO an odd choice since the soc'y term is IIRC older than the whole cladistics approach, and IMO far better recognized than the bio term. Those interested in the accompanying article may want to offer evidence at ~~talk:Outgroup#Primary topic?~~ talk:Outgroup (cladistics)#Primary topic?.
--Jerzy•t 00:27, 17 & 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move done; Outgroup is now Dab.
--Jerzy•t 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the content for group homogeneity

The paragraph on group homogeneity vaguely described different effects of group homogeneity, without giving reference to the names of these phenomenas. In an effort to improve the clarity of this paragraph, I altered the paragraph, by replacing some of the content, to clearly include the name and a short description of the two effects of group homogeneity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahay (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added outgroup derogation

There has been extensive research on the topic of outgroup derogation, yet the topic has not been covered anywhere on Wikipedia. As this phenomena accompanies ingroup favoritism, a topic that is extensively covered on Wikipedia, I have added outgroup derogation to the Wikipedia page in order to improve the thoroughness of the ingroups and outgroups page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islahay (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "In-group and out-group". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingroups and outgroups → In-group and out-group – Per WP:CONSISTENT with In-group favoritism, and singular forms per WP:SINGULAR. Spellings within the relevant fields are inconsistent, and our own article is veering back and forth between the hyphenated and non-hyphenated forms. Per WP:Common sense I suggest we follow the hyphenated form as easier to parse, especially for non-specialists and for non-native readers of English. Should we go with Ingroup and outgroup, then In-group favoritism should be moved for consistency (and perhaps some other such articles should also). The text will also need to be normalized in one direction or the other. The rcats on various redirects may also need tweaking after the move. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Both are common so either could be used. The suggested title is easier to parse. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 25#Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AngeAri (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AngeAri (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]