Talk:Anti-social behavior

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 23 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to keep as a redirect. Discussion:

From Cleanup: Anti-social dict def.

maybe redir to Antisocial personality disorder? Lefty 13:17, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)
redir and keep. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect. Psychonaut 23:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
delete content but redirect page to the badly flawed and highly subjective personal essay titled Antisocial. "Antagonist" is not a term used to describe language; it usually refers to a human role or a physiological agent. Antisocial is antithetical to social, but many adjectives can be made antithetical by the addition of "anti" as a suffix. Then maybe list antisocial on VfD because it rests on the faulty premise that antagonism among cultural groups comprises antisocial behavior. Discussion of how society benefits from abhorrant behavior can be included in Antisocial personality disorder, or in other better developed sociological articles. Abhorrent behaviors described in the plodding Antisocial article are not antisocial in that they do not demonstrate an individual's preference for their prurient individual interest at the expense of social constructs. Torrid 22:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Redir completed

Per the discussion above this article should redir to Antisocial personality disorder. It is a lot of biased, poorly cited nonsense and a blatant Wikipedia:Content fork. Anything about the british law should be in its article, anything about a scientific characterization of anti-social behavior should be in APD. See futher discussion below. Fourdee 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Anti-social → Anti-social behaviour … Rationale: The article violates Wikipedia naming convention by using the adjective form, while that is somewhat rarer than "anti-social behaviour", anyway. It also blatantly uses the noun in the opening sentence. elvenscout742 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support elvenscout742 21:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. David Kernow 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nomination. James F. (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.[edit]

The title of this page is "Anti-social behaviour," in British english, while the rest of the article refers to it as "anti-social behavior," American english. I'm not going to say which is best, and after all most people understand the difference, but still it just looks sloppy. Since the title is already in the british spelling I suppose maybe we should change the spelling to -our throughout the article but note that it is, in american english (and thus most frequently) spelled behavior. Citizen Premier 23:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clean-up.[edit]

For example, a group of young people meeting on a street corner is not in itself being anti-social. However, if they start to let off fireworks, knock over a garden wall or shout abuse at passers-by, their behaviour is obviously anti-social!

How is letting off fireworks "obviously anti-social"? I mean, does "letting off fireworks" have some incredibly negative connotations in other countries that I'm just blissfully ignorant of? And...

IE. The proof is: If the mathematical sample of any social group is 100% of the society and in that sample all (100%) behave the same, does the society grow (positive) or diminish, (negative)? If the effect of the behaviour of all members of the society is negative, the same behaviour in one member is negative, or "anti-social".

...what the hell does this mean? Who said this? Maybe this needs to be reworded, but I don't understand what it's trying to say. Mathematically if the sample is the entire society, then a behavior that causes negative effects to society if everyone does it is anti-social in the individual? So like if I went to a restaurant tonight, that would be anti-social because if my entire city all went to restaurants tonight, that would be negative to society?

I have good faith that this is not the intent, but the article comes off as a pro-government "let's-preserve-the-status-quo" kind of piece. Who decides what is good for society? The list given by the police? This is a shaky article, but I don't know how to improve it. It's not terrible, but it's clearly written from the government's standpoint. If you hate clicking, DO NOT click here. 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redir again per AfD above and common sense[edit]

This article was mostly nonsense. Anything about the British law should be in the article for it which already exists. All the variants of "Anti-social behaviour" (4 spelling variants) should redirect to Antisocial personality disorder for a more scientific discussion of the concept.

Just an example of the tripe that was in here (to paraphrase): "The proof that a behaviour is anti-social is that if everyone did it, the size of the population should decrease."

That's absolutely absurd in so many ways. By that classification nearly any behavior you describe would be anti-social. If everyone worked as a garbage man, that would be nobody working as a farmer and we would all starve. Does that mean the garbage man is anti-social?

Whoever put this article here is exhibiting anti-social behavior, because if wikipedia were filled with Wikipedia:Content forks and made-up "proofs" its readership would decrease to nothing.

Fourdee 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to Disambiguation[edit]

This page was proposed for deletion, but I converted it to a disambiguation page because it has multiple significance in sociology and psychology, and a lot of incoming links.

For info, there is more extensive page history at the incoming redirect Anti-social behaviour, which shares a talk page with this Antisocial behavior. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page history of these articles and Antisocial is rather confusing! Anyway, the above comments are now out of date. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint[edit]

Added tag because this article is mainly based on UK law and needs a more worldwide view. 203.213.75.70 (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]