User talk:Mfils018/sandbox

Hi, I am trying to add information about the Mind, self, and society from a Sociologist point of View for my Basic Ideas of Sociology class as a project to be graded and I was wondering if the sources cited below would be good for me to begin working on the article page. If anyone has better sources or more information I should pay attention to message me on the talk page and let my know. Thank you in advance for the care.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * McAulay, R. (1977). MEAD AND THE INEFFABLE. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 2(1), 17-28. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23254925Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1983). Beyond the looking-glass self: Social structure and efficacy-based self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 77-88.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. White (Eds.), Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 191-214). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.Mfils018 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Suitability for Wikipedia
I've moved this back to the student's sandbox since this would not be considered a Wikipedia article at this point in time.

I have a few words of caution. The first thing that I have to caution Mfils018 about is that this idea seems to be the basis of a student/academic paper rather than a Wikipedia article. I've written on this to a degree here, but the basic thing here is that your proposed article looks like it's more about your personal interpretation of the topic of mind, self, and society. Be very careful when it comes to choosing topics, as in many cases the topic might not actually be something that would fit Wikipedia's guidelines.

For example, the topic could be seen as far too loose for a Wikipedia article. You need to find sources that specifically mention the topic as "mind, self, and society" - and even then you need to show how this phrase would be independently notable outside of the overall article for sociology or outside of the main article for the book by the same name. I'm just worried that this article would be considered original research on Wikipedia since the sources you've put in the article seem to be very general and are already covered in other articles like Identity (social science) and similar. This is likely part of the reason why the page was tagged for deletion so quickly. I also have to caution you about the additions to Mind, Self and Society. They aren't bad per se, but they do come across as original research and as such are at risk of getting altered or outright removed. The number one thing with original research is that it's conclusions that you drew yourself and a Wikipedia article should only contain research that has been published by reliable sources that very explicitly state what you're putting in the article. In other words, a Wikipedia article would only summarize content written by another person. Someone looking back at the original work should be able to see where that person specifically stated the claims in the article. If you have to back up something by saying "it could have meant this" or "the author likely thought" then that's original research.

My personal recommendation would be to work on improving the book article. It's usually easier to work on a pre-existing article than it is to come up with an entirely new idea, especially since it's far more likely that you'll find sourcing that talks about this book. I strongly recommend that you not include anything about films, anime, or other media in the article unless something has very, very explicitly and specifically mention this book or concept. This would absolutely be considered original research on Wikipedia and should not be placed in an article.

Now don't feel bad about coming up with the idea. As an idea for a paper, it's pretty darn good and I recommend that you cultivate it for a future thesis or academic work. It's pretty common for students to come up with ideas that are actually student papers, so don't feel bad about that either. I just think that it'd be far easier for you to expand the pre-existing book article than to try to come up with an article on the general concept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your insights, tokyogirl79! Melissa: please take the time to read through Tokyogirl79's comments. I think that she is right: you need to focus on writing about the book itself or pick a different topic altogether. Alfgarciamora (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for the book - it could still use a lot of expansion overall. And I mean it with the thesis/paper comment, I think it'd be a pretty interesting read. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for responding so late to your insights Tokyo girl on my idea for the article. I would also like to thank for moving my sandbox page from not being an article anymore. I know there was already a page created for Mind, Self, and Society and that is the page I was working on however, due to some misjudgment on my side I move my whole sandbox to make it an entirely new article. Once again, I thank you for moving my article back.  can you elaborate on what you mean for using the book. I was planning to write about the history of Mead on the page and how the book was put together. Then, I was going to go on to writing about sociologist today who incorporate Mead into their own work. What do you think about my new thoughts for the page? Once again, Sorry for responding so late.Mfils018 (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prof Garcia's Comments
You are doing a great job, Melissa. I think that you have done a lot of research and that you are posting a lot of useful stuff. Moving forward, I think one thing you can do is focus on structuring your page so that it is more like a successful Wikipedia page. The lead section, for instance, should only be a sentence or two. And your writing should be more "encyclopedic." But this will come in the editing stage. As you continue to research and write, just take a moment to review the language and see if it is in an encyclopedic tone. Also, keep reaching out to Tokyo Girl to see what s/he has to say. Alfgarciamora (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)