Talk:Sociology/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions for the period 2008–2009.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

need help

Hi. can anyone here please help? What is selective affinity? appreciate any help or information possible. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RD for quicker answers.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociology and other social sciences section

The list of other disciplines at the end of this section seems out of place. I think that the list should be included but it seems like it needs an introduction or something to that effect. I'm just not sure what the best fix would be. Any ideas?--Woland (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New resource to add to external links

Hi, I'd like to add this external link to this section if others agree:

Internet Sociologist - a free online tutorial teaching Internet research skills for Sociology students

I will declare an interest in that I work for Intute - but this is a free, non-commerical resource, funded by a grant from the UK government via JISC, designed to help university and college students to develop skills and knowledge that will help them in their studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmawors (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A Contention

I am giving a link to a sociological contention of mine connecting certain codes in languages to that of human attributes; and beyond. Secondary Level on Language CodesIf this posting of mine here goes beyond the parameters of Discussion Page rules here, it may be removed. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A Muslim Perspective on Sociology

Moved from main, where it was lost and commented out in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Histories</ref>) and Muslim sociological contributions, especially by Ibn Khaldun,^[1] whose Muqaddimah is considered by some religious sects as the earliest work on sociology as a social science.^[2]^[3]

Social Science?

I have it on good authority that the preferred title of "Sociology" is now "Social Science", in order to differentiate it for people believing it is referring to "Socialism". This would make "Sociologists" into "Social Scientists". Comments or thoughts about changing Titles?

Cleanup time!

I propose a major cleanup of the sociology page. I started by archiving the present talk (see archive link to the right).

Here are the major points of what I think should be done to improve this page:

At the start there should be a clear summary of what sociology is. The Introduction to Sociology wikibook [1] could be a good source for this. That text needs to be paraphrased into encyclopedia tone, though.

There are too many lists on the page. The long lines of names should be removed in favor of summaries of ideas. These should be in paragraph form, not in bullet point form.

There should be proportionally more present-day content and less historical content. History is of course good, but the present page makes it look like most of sociology happened a hundred years ago. There should be at least as much space dedicated to present-day sociological research. Some of the contemporary topics that could be interesting to highlight are in actor-network theory, medical sociology, social network analysis, culture and cognition and gene-environment interactions. Many more things could be added to this list.

Let's make the sociology page easy to read and exciting! DarwinPeacock (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help, but my sociology textbooks are where I'll have access to them in 2 weeks or so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I think this is going to take more than two weeks, anyway :) DarwinPeacock (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I edited a ton of stuff, mainly rewrites. I hope the changes are acceptable! Happy holidays! Ytcracker (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup edits are always good. I think the Scope and topics of sociology section is in need of a more serious rewrite though. It seems to me like it's just a random list of links. I think, preferably, that section would be much longer, and consist of short sub-sections for various topics in sociology, each of which would in turn contain a "Main Articles" link to the full article on that topic. This would be much easier if the various topics articles were themselves better, but we've got to work with what we have... DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article was a mess before, it certainly looks better now, and I've removed the cleanup tag. What the article really appears to need now is expansion. I took the initiative to build Sociology#Positivism_and_anti-positivism with discussions of Marxian, Weberian, and Durkheimian methodology. I find it odd how under-treated these figures have been in the article; to attempt an overview of sociology without Marx, Weber, and Durkheim seems akin to summarizing physics with minimal mention of Newton, Einstein, and Planck. (On that note, one could argue that "most of sociology happened a hundred years ago," if one views the current trends in positivism as a throwback to Comte--whom, rather paradoxically, no one takes seriously anymore.) But there is a lot that could be said about sociobiology and related fields, such as memetics, which truly are offering new and valuable information. Here we have examples of sociology that should have happened a hundred years ago, following not too long after the work of one of the greatest social thinkers ever, Mr. Darwin. Additionally, Sociology#Scope_and_topics_of_sociology could be greatly expanded with summaries of, say, sociology of religion and sociology of the family. For an example of what such a section might end up looking like, see Psychology#Subfields. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Latte, the removal of the cleanup tag is a good moment to savor; the article is indeed clean enough for that now. I also agree that the article is most in need of expansion (that's why I stubbed the Sociology#Scope_and_topics_of_sociology section). And I never wanted to make the case that Marx, Weber and Durkheim should be removed from the article -- I just did not think they should be the primary focus of it. However, I strongly disagree with the desirability of including either sociobiology or memetics in the article on sociology. These academic approaches are not part of the discipline of sociology, and nor have they ever been. While they share some of the subject matter with sociology, they are not seriously considered in the sociological literature, and are rarely if ever taught in sociology departments. These approaches are tangent to sociology just like economic sociology is to the discipline of economics (the article on the latter mentions the former only in the "See also" section). However, both sociobiology and memetics could earn mentions in the article in the context of fields that are a part of contemporary sociology. Sociobiology, for example, could be mentioned in the context of studies of gene-environment interactions; memetics has some parallels in the (far more sociological) Actor-Network theory. The recent AJS supplement on gene-environment interactions ([2]) could be a good source for working genes into this article. DarwinPeacock (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit that it would be unorthadox to introduce large or uncontextualized statements about sociobiology, etc. into a fairly small article about sociology. But I have high hopes that Sociology#Scope_and_topics_of_sociology can be expanded to a point at which even some against-the-grain approaches won't stand out like sore thumbs. Gene-environment interactions or actor-network theory (the latter of which is new to me) could be reasonable contexts in which to mention those approaches. However, given the efforts of sociologists such as Alexandra Maryanski (see [3]) and Richard Machalek to introduce an evolutionary approach to sociology, I wonder if a reasonably-sized subsection on "Evolutionary sociology" (not unlike the bit on evolutionary psychology that was recently added to the psychology article) might also work. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. An "Evolutionary sociology" subsection would be quite reasonable under "Scope and topics". There definitely need to be a lot more things there. I am very excited about all this work you're doing on the article, btw. DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Same. Also, there have been inappropiate edits made to this page that simply must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SocioEconomics (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing Sociology

I have edited, and rededited this Sociology page more often than I can count. Each time I return to this page it is ladden with with either vague or improper content and context. I am a Sociologist. My handle is Sociologist4life. The recomendation below to the "Introduction to Sociology wikibook" is what I created. There seems to be people editing this page adding in their own personal sociological slant. A true Sociology professional does not attempt to impose one's view. To do so is in contradiction of the discpline. I urge all readers to think about this and to avoid editing and rediting work that already addresses what Sociology is.

At present, this page does not even provide and operational definition of Sociology, which is needed and of which I already created and of which is now not there. Track the changes created by me and then subsequent changes. You'll notice that most changes omit the basics of Sociology and have been rewritten with either political or Darwinian slants. Sociology is about understanding human behaviour not an attempt to sway the reader! I will refrain from advising my students to use this page any longer. I am disgusted with what has transpired. I think someone from within Wikipedia needs to address this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.114.104 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sociologist4life, this page does indeed need a huge amount of work, and your further contributions would be very welcome. There is also no way to stop anyone from editing a wiki page -- keeping wiki pages alive takes continuous effort, and it is always a cumulative one. This process, I think, is quite appropriate for describing sociology, which is a broad discipline consisting of a vast number of diverse theoretical, methodological and epistemological approaches. (I am also a sociologist, or at least well on my way to becoming one; I am not certain what your views on the discipline are, but I suspect that they are not exactly the same as mine.) Please, contribute whatever changes you think would make this page better. There is not going to be anybody "from within Wikipedia" who steps into the process: it's all up to us. DarwinPeacock (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments

Please refrain from asserting a particular sociological position or theorist in it's operational definition. Giddens is only one of several theorists in the discipline. Professional protocal among Sociologists is to not assert one's position in a general operational definition. I have changed this opening sentence many times to only discvover that someone is adding their own slant. This is very unprofessional and will mislead the new learner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.112.202 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whom you're addressing, but since I've edited the article heavily lately, I'm listening. More importantly, though, I don't know exactly what you're contesting. Nothing in the article's introduction strikes me as particularly controversial. The citations might not even be necessary there, because the information is fairly common-knowledge, although I don't see how they're hurting anything; they're certainly not there to advance the position of any sociologist to the exclusion of others. I saw what appeared to be some attempts on your part to tidy up the introduction, which seems like a reasonable thing to do, but apparently I'm missing something. Would you mind cluing me in? Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Giddens text in question is "Introduction to Sociology" by Giddens, Duneier, and Appelbaum. It's a pretty uncontroversial text. DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented-out paragraph

FYI, I've commented out the following paragraph,

In the late 20th century, some sociologists embraced postmodern and poststructuralist philosophies. Increasingly, many sociologists have used qualitative and ethnographic methods and become critical of the positivism in some social scientific approaches.^{[citation needed]} Much like cultural studies, some contemporary sociological studies have been influenced by the cultural changes of the 1960s, 20th century Continental philosophy, literary studies, and interpretivism. Others have maintained more objective empirical perspectives, such as by articulating neofunctionalism, social psychology, and rational choice theory. Others, such as Otto Newman, began to debate the nature of globalization and the changing nature of social institutions. These developments have led some to reconceptualize basic sociological categories and theories. For instance, inspired by the thought of Michel Foucault, power may be studied as dispersed throughout society in a wide variety of disciplinary cultural practices. In political sociology, the power of the nation state may be seen as transforming due to the globalization of trade and cultural exchanges, and due to the expanding influence of international organizations (Nash 2000:1-4),

with the following note:

PLEASE consider organizing the following paragraph before making it visible again. Currently (as of 10-11 Feb. 09) it is presented in such a haphazard fashion that the preceding paragraph (ending with conflict theory and neomarxism) flows better into the following paragraph (beginning with the survival of positivism in the U.S.) WITHOUT this intermediate series of digressions in the way.

Best to nix it, rescue it, or leave it visible? Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, ditch it. Looks unfixable to me. There should definitely be a different mention of postmodernism somewhere around there, though. DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree (with all points), and have removed the paragraph accordingly. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Positivism and Anti-positivism

The section seems a bit too friendly to the anti-positivism side of the debate. Much more attention is paid to the anti-positivism side, and even Durkheim is presented as something of a non-positivist. It is my understanding that most sociologists are now somewhere on the spectrum between the two poles, with the majority being somewhat tempered positivists (though none are Comteans). (Afaik, all major graduate sociology programs require significant stats training, and most offer qualitative methods techniques as an optional methods course). I think the way the section is right now makes it sound that there are few positivists (or tempered positivists) around. Thoughts? DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to add some contemporary updates on the debate, although I see the potential for two errors: A) to allow any implication that Durkheim was the kind of guy who could have declared, "Sociology is the scientific study of society" and been on his merry way. Durkheim himself arguably qualifies as a "tempered positivist"; see, for example, page 19 of this paper. And B) to cite current practices that don't revolve around particularly articulate apologetics or debates. As the philosophical basis for experimental methods, positivism is, IMO, associated with a lot of how's (methods) and what's (data) that often leave limited room for discussion of the why's that constitute philosophical bases in the first place. The fact that so much sociology, at least in the United States, is so statistically oriented is, itself, fodder for nonpositivist critiques of the status quo. In a nutshell, although NPOV would indicate that current, mainstream views should be noted, I'd suggest that they should be noted with great care. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been suggested, contemporary sociology is anything but largely quantitative. The most progressive changes in recent sociology have been theoretical, and qualitative approaches. This is not to say quantitative is not still very popular. We must remain cautious in announcing one methodology is widely preferred over another. Quantitative methods are much more common in the US than in both Canada, and the UK. There are many ideological critiques which attempt to explain these differences. Many of these focus on the ideas that 'objective' facts, and data are more useful political tools for policy. Thus, as research institutions are given funding due to their production of 'useful' research, quantitative methodologies are often used in preference to reletavist qualitative methods. But on the other hand, some of the most useful sociological research has been done through qualitative methodologies and they have also been quite influential on public policy. Experiments such as the stanford prison experiment are illustrative of this. There must also be a realization that current sociological theories are very much more focused on describing how society operates rather than why it operates in such ways. This perspective is currently often considered the post-structuralist perspective (most notably started by French Sociologist and Philosopher Michel Foucault). This perspective is not positivist, even though it focuses on describing how society works. This perspective attributes all social morals, values, beliefs and so on to being abstract social structures that influence the actions of individuals and society in general. These structures are NOT permanent and by nature are very fluid and always changing. The main idea is that there are always abstract social structures pronounced through cultural discourses that shape and condition the way people and communities behave. One would be very hard pressed to find a fundamentalist positivist sociologist in this day in age. They likely became extinct long ago. Sociology presently is much more interested in socialization processes than in discovering an inherent and objective 'human nature.' This is likely why sociologists and psychologists often find disagreements. Positivism has also taken a large hit in the natural sciences and all other social sciences. All academic disciplines became aware, a long time ago, that we often prescribe our own ideas on the outside world, rather than understand them for what they actually are. Biologists have often been accused of prescribing human traits on their explanations of animal behaviour - it is very likely that we can never fully understand animal behaviour because we are not those particular animals (we also barely understand human behaviour and we are humans!). Accordingly, even quantum physicists have debated these controversies of human perception and methods when describing atomic predictions. It is quite interesting to point out that these debates originated in philosophy hundreds of years ago, and only now all disciplines seem to be understanding this dilemma (see Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy) to get a better grasp on this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky1984 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

CosmicLatte, I agree with you completely. Ricky, there is currently far more space and attention attributed to non-positivist approaches; I am merely trying to find balance. But it's curious that you bring up the Stanford prison experiment as an example, since it itself is positivist (being an experiment) and exists in social psychology, which is a heavily statistical literature. I wouldn't go too far in claiming that physics is non-positivist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarwinPeacock (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Phrase modification?

Why is the phrase "far flung" used in describing concepts in lines 6,7? 195.220.227.166 (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it and change it if you have a better phrasing. See WP:BB. DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sociology#Twentieth century developments

I've removed some recent changes to this section that covered Marxism and post-structuralism. However, both of those topics should be covered. My beef with the changes was that they introduced a very detailed discussion of the influence of Marxism on post-structuralism in a section that is otherwise a summary. The detailed discussion here is misleading about Marxism's role in sociology in general and in post-structuralism in particular. However, brief descriptions of both Marxism and post-structuralism would be quite quite fitting there. If Marxist sociology needs far more detail than a sentence or two, it should probably go into its own section (or even a Marxist sociology entry?). DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

request for some help

If there is anyone here (who watches this page) who knows quite a bit about J.J. Rousseau and Emile Durkheim, would you please contact me? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Try also asking at their discussion pages, and at WP:RDH. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I left messages there, over a month ago. I also left messages on France-related pages. Since these guys are political philosophers/social scientists I do not think RDH will help but I do appreciate the suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Manuel Castells and The Internet Galaxy

I have added internal Wikipedia links for both Manuel Castells and The Internet Galaxy. Михал Орела (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice update, thank you. --77.99.78.57 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Scopes and Topics

I've expanded the scopes and topics section, which for a long time, quite strangely, only consisted of 'the internet'. All these sections, however, require considerable improvement. If some people with a reasonable level of expertise could improve a section each that'd be great. --Tomsega (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It might help to pull subfields out of this long list and divide it into it's own segment, and use the ASA's sections as a guide for established subfields. Then, perhaps, leave Scopes and Topics for more specific topics? Dustin Stoltz (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe correlate it with the International Sociological Association so it's not soooo Amerio-centric? or Mix various associations to find the most common? Thebucketmanfromhades (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, after looking at the ASA and ISA's sections and the BSA's 'study groups', it would be wise to use them only as a very loose guideline. They have some ridiculously specific sections! In any case, I think organizing each the Scopes and topics section into more manageable "subfields" is a wise idea. Maybe grouping them without removing the content - such as the Internet under Technology, then again Internet could be grouped with Communications more broadly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebucketmanfromhades (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

This page is a heck of a lot better than it was 6 weeks ago, but there are still some vandalistic/mindless updates being made. Could anyone with the know-how set the gears in motion to get semi-protection on it?? --77.99.78.57 (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the amount of vandalism recently, I reckon it probably should get semi-protection, yeah. --Tomsega (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sociology" synonymous with "social science"

First of all, to Tomsega, to the editor at 81.155.85.59, and to the others who've been working on this article lately: Great work! This article has improved dramatically since the last time I worked heavily on it, and it might even be headed toward WP:FA status, which had seemed an absurdly unlikely dream just a couple months ago. My only issue at this point is rather minor, really, and it's an issue with the lead asserting that "sociology" and "social science" are often synonymous. Tomsega points out--correctly, I should note--that "sociology, as the science of society, was formally established long before the umbrella term 'social science' lay claim to swallowing it up". Of course, the different "founders" (for lack of a better term) of sociology used the word "science" to mean different things; the Comtean "science of society", for example, is worlds apart from a Weberian "science of society". However, only for Comte was there the (positivistic) science of society: sociology, the Science of Sciences (in much the same sense as Christianity views Jesus as the "King of Kings"). For Weber and others, sociology is a (non-positivistic, or at least non-Comtean) science of society, insofar as society is something that can be studied scientifically. From the post-Comtean view, sociology is not morally or methodologically superior to anthropology, history, economics, psychology, etc.; it is rather a viable alternative to these other social sciences. Even if the term "social science" was not in use back in the days of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, it would have been a semantically and syntactically proper reference to a variety of non-sociological disciplines. So I would assume that only a hard-core Comtean (if any still exist) would formally recognize the "social science" as sociology. As for more general reference, I suppose a bit of self-disclosure is in order: I am American, and my assumptions may reflect my cultural background and/or bias. In gradeschool/grammar school here, "social studies" ("studies" being roughly synonymous with "science" in the broadest sense of the latter term) refers to a conglomeration of mostly history, geography, and political science, along with a dash of psychology, sociology, economics, and other disciplines. At the university level, I studied both psychology and sociology; I could summarize this by saying, "I studied social science", but would likely then be asked, "Which one(s)?" A university's "division of social sciences" would not, by any means, be equivalent to the university's sociology department, although it would often encompass that department. If I am not mistaken, both Tomsega and the IP editor are British, and they might be aware of terminology that is not restricted by my American education and assumptions. If this is the case, then please forgive my ignorance, and keep up the good work. However, if my point seems potentially valid, then please mull it over. And, nonetheless, keep up the good work. (As an aside, I noticed that someone else has cited the Ashley/Orenstein source, which I initially introduced to the article. If anyone who has read this source reads this talk page post, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the book. Another disclosure: I am not one of the authors, although I have studied under one of them.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cosmic. I graduated in sociology about two months ago and, possibly as a result of the state of the current job market, ended up spending a good hour a day working on this article and its babies. The opening paragraph stating "the cultural turn happened in the 1980s" served as some inspiration..!

Regarding the synonymity of sociology and social science, first of all, yes, my main point would be that sociology as the science of society existed long before the presumably Anglo-American umbrella term lay claim to it (perhaps this owes to the history of sociologie as a continental affair and the rather separate trajectory of British anthropology in the 19th century). The fact that some English-speakers missed the boat first time around, or that sociology is always self-criticising and mutating, is not really the fault of sociologists. If sociology were not so encompassing of all these 19th century 'sciences of society' it would have no right to claim Marx - who never worked as a sociologist per se, and who probably despised Comte.

Agreed academically the terms shouldn't be interchangeable, but then it's often hit-or-miss whether a subfield piece (say, on ethnic relations or urban studies) will categorise itself as a work of social science or of sociology, and there's often no rationale behind that except preference. On a conversational level, though, or in popular journalism, it seems to me as if 'sociological' and 'social-scientific' are used adjectivally at random, and this is the small point I hoped to highlight by saying "often synonymous". The use of the word 'often', the fact there are two separate wiki articles, seems enough to me. It's definitely a point of controversy though, so I'm prepared to be outvoted. Maybe "informally synonymous" would be more appropriate.--Tomsega (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

about The Sociology we believe other people that they have a sociological idea like other people genius just we need is to believe, they used they idea to have a great responsibility they are all been :jj""j {a} we need immediate solusyon the we can help other people to preview their own hope, {AI!!!} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.198.199 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

'Classical' sociologists

The key figures section lists 'classical' and 'latter 20th century' theorists, and has received some nice updates recently. Question remains who should qualify as a 'classical' sociologist. On the one hand they must obviously be major theorists, on the other it's a question of era. I think WW2 is a reasonable cut-off point. The Frankfurt school and Parsons just about class as 'classical' in that respect, whereas anybody born after about 1910 is probably closer to 'contemporary'. --Tomsega (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@Tomsega: In remaking this part, we clashed, unfortunately. I apologize. You see: I consider it a questionable course, to include thinkers, who just influenced sociology (sociologists) as key thinkers without being sociologists. In this case, we shall be probably forced to add more and more people, including ancient ones. The list of "others" (dead or alife) might create discussions enough - concerning "classics" we ought to be careful. Think of those youngsters, who turn up to be informed, and start with Benjamin and the like as a given example. "Sociology" will be very clouded a concept in their eyes. Greetings -- €pa (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy. This general point invokes the same question of whether or not Marx should be counted as a 'sociologist' simply because he never said so himself. In that instance I would say firmly yes, he was a sociologist, because he established a science of society, and was a studier-of-society, and sociology has developed as an approach, a method, an activity, not a 'club'. The word 'philosophy' has historically lay claim to just about all intellectual activity, which is understandable, but not always appropriate. To my mind, sociology is a sort of 'political philosophy of modernity', and although not all political philosophers are sociologists, all Marxists are both. With regard to the Frankfurt school, what adequately distinguishes Adorno and Habermas (self-described 'sociologists') from Marcuse and Benjamin (who supposedly didn't)? Similarly, to get from Marx to Baudrillard, or even to get from Marx to Giddens, you need Gramsci and Lukacs, yet only Gramsci has been left in. Is that consistent? Again I'd reiterate, as Marxism is a science of society, all Marxist theory is sociological theory.

Similarly, despite feminism being a major part of sociology, almost no feminists describe themselves as 'sociologists' -- they describe themselves only as 'feminists'. We'd have no feminists on the list if we didn't accept feminism as a breed of sociology. And lets face it, feminist theorists have much more in common with Marx, Weber and Parsons than they do with Herbert Spencer! In a nutshell: Sociology has to be recognised as a fairly broad term. --Tomsega (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite agreeing, I see your point (sociology = political philosophy). But, you might exclude several of our best people. Moreover, I utterly disagree to the idea that by declaring oneself a marxist (or feminist, for that), one might enter the halls of sociology. We shall get all those fighters, a lot of them having only a very superficial understanding of sociological reasoning or research, claiming that “class“ be a catch-all for all social problems. Wouldn’t you fall in with that?
Anyhow, “who shall decide, if scholars disagree?” -- €pa (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are Marxist authors, comedians and psychologists that I wouldn't class as sociologists, certainly, but I just can't see any logical reason, if Marx is a sociologist, why Lukacs isn't. They both examined the exact same subject manner in broadly the same method. If they both are or neither are. Neither one said 'Hi, I'm a sociologist'. I'd say Edward Said and Simone de Beavoir, for instance, are far more controversial inclusions on the list! But then they are key theorists, even if they're not sociologists. Regardless, I appreciate your good efforts on this page. Some of the edits in the past few days have been vandalism, if not just wrong and unhelpful, and it'd be nice if I wasn't the only one un-doing them all. --Tomsega (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Being an adherent of a sociological idea doesn't make one a sociologist. If you start including political philosophers where do you stop? By your logic, it seems like all political philosophers would be sociologists. Fixentries (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, really, I was more pointing attention to the lack of logic involved in saying Marx was a sociologist and saying someone like Lukacs, who was essentially carrying on Marx's work, was not. There is no logic there, it's just 'the done thing' to classify some intellectuals as political philosophers and others as sociologists. Furthermore, Gramsci and Lukacs are very nearly as central to the work of modern sociologist-Marxists as Marx was himself. --Tomsega (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to give special preference to Marxism as "sociological" over other political theories. I'm not familiar enough to form a good argument about this. I would class the dialectical materialism under sociology, but not necessarily consequences of it or philosophies based on it. Fixentries (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all very grey, but the key reason Marxism is supposed to be sociology rather than political philosophy per se is because it sets out to be scientific, systematic, and dialectic, rather than moral or normative. But today we know it's certainly not a science, so that complicates things further! --Tomsega (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO references to "Classical Sociologists" should be deleted. It seems to me to be a peacock term, denoting nothing more than a subjective classification of the "greats" of sociology, a sort of top-ten, fav-list, founder-members of some sort of movement. The term is being used elsewhere in wiki as if it had some greater significant than this, which, judging from the above, it does not. Classifications of positivists, functionalists, etc serve a real purpose. They denote clear streams of thought, rather than setting apart "venerable leaders" from "modern upstarts" or "clueless ancients" LookingGlass (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

'Criticism section'

I have removed this contribution for the following reasons: (1) There are absolutely no references. Granted other sections do not have references, but those sections don't have to prove their own worth quite as much as a criticism section; these sorts of sections are very susceptible to POV and general nonsense. (2) Criticisms between sociologists, for instance positivist critiques of post-structuralism, are simply disputes within the discipline, and not criticisms of sociology per se. The fact lots of different sociologists have different opinions on how sociology should be done is already covered, or at least always implicit. (3) Something like Thatchers statement "there is no such thing as society", which I think is on the society page, would attack social and political science and social philosophy in general, not specifically sociology. The fact that sociology has been undermined by certain governments is already mentioned quite enough in the history section. The edit was a fair contribution and I hate to be rude but I hope you see why I removed it. By all means we could have a criticism section, it's just imperative that this section, perhaps more than any other, should be very highly referenced indeed. People will always have their own subjective opinions about sociology (usually out of ignorance), and those opinions don't belong here. --Tomsega (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should one section have different standards of citation than another? It seems wasteful to just remove material rather than trying to improve it or find good citations. I don't think anyone wants to see articles summarily gutted just for the problem of lacking sources. Fixentries (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right: ALL sections should be referenced. Personally I don't think it's appropriate to have a criticism section for a whole broad discipline, especially when this page has already seen a lot of vandalism as it is - we're just going to see those same POV acts of vandalism put into politer language. But that's just my opinion. So long as there are full and proper references, it's fine as far as the Wikipedia rules are concerned. I think we also have to bear in mind that this is a major page but with comparatively few regular editors, so efforts have to made to keep the level of academic discourse as high as you see, for example, on the Psychology or Philosophy pages (this time two months ago the sociology page was almost embarrassingly poor).--Tomsega (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your edit and it seemed to make sense, sorry, I meant to come back and mention that. The material you removed was pretty questionable or incorrectly classed under "Criticisms". I'm not sure all of it is covered in the "positivism" section though. Fixentries (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. --Tomsega (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok here are the claims from there. Which of these are already contained in the article under positivism or other sections?

Mainstream sociological theory has been criticized by sociologists for focusing too much on static phenomena and ignoring social processes over time (Elias)
for focusing too much on stability and consensus and ignoring conflict (Dahrendorf)
for an unclear definition of its subject of study (Latour)
for legitimizing the status quo of the time instead of pointing out social inequalities (marxist sociologists)
and for not taking into account the role of women in society (feminist sociologists)
among other things.
Certain currents of thought within the discipline, such as social constructionism, and the poststructuralist and postmodern-influenced branches of social theory have been criticized as epistemologically relativistic and thus eroding the scientific status of sociology.
Certain research areas from the biological sciences, such as sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, etiology and the neurosciences have been seen as competing paradigms to the main schools of sociological thought.
A core idea of sociological thought - that there are social phenomena that affect the individual - has been challenged on ideological grounds by politicians like Margaret Thatcher, who contend that 'society' is a false construct which is used to undermine individual responsibility.
The work of sociologists has in the course of history been at odds with other social sciences - such as economics - who claim to produce theories with better explanatory power for social phenomena.

Which are relevant to the article and may have merit for inclusion? Fixentries (talk)

There are some good points here. However, all of the first five are criticisms by sociologists of other styles of sociology, which could be mentioned as those methods are introduced in the main body, but which do not constitute a critique of the discipline itself. What is 'mainstream sociology'? I don't think there is such a thing. Some people have the view the majority of sociologists are functionalist positivists, whereas other people think all sociologists are Marxists or social relativists. American sociology is more statistical, whereas European departments are often heavier on Marxism and literary thinking. I don't even think it's right to attempt to divide the discipline up between 'functionalists, conflict theorists and antipositivists' - it seems to me a huge generalisation for the purposes of school or undergraduate-level courses. In fact, something I think really should be criticised is the awfulness of school-level curricula, because that's what tricks certain people into thinking it'll be like that again at university...

The point 'certain research areas from the biological sciences' as well as the point on economics is good, but couldn't it just go in the section 'sociology and the other social sciences'?? Perhaps if we rename that section 'other disciplines' instead?

As for the Thatcher point.. well, I just think that is such an ineffably stupid and ignorant remark, to the extent it's not worth mentioning! --Tomsega (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with Tomsega, who seems to know quite a bit about the subject. There is no reason that every article should hve a criticism section. The "criticisms" listed here that have some validity (e.g. Latour) I think are far better characterized as "debates" which, since the very beginning, is what Academe has been all about. After all, Latour is himself a sociologist, and Marx is considered as foundational to social theory as Durkheim, Weber, and others. To characterize a high level of debate among sociologists, or between sociologists and economists, as criticisms seems to misrepresent what is going on. Also, some debates are here misplaced. So, some economists argue against some sociological theories. But obviously sociologists argue against economists. In these cases, what we need is an article on the matter under debate, providing the views of both sociologists and economists (and others as the case may be) thus complying with our NPOV policy and no need for a silly "criticisms" section. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think sociobiology has too much space here for an article on another subject. It certainly never took off, most biologists do not do sociobiology and only a handful of social scientists, mostly in psychology and not sociology, were really influenced. Wouldn't it be far more interesting to discuss the difference between George herbert mead's social psychology and Solomon Asch's social psychology? That comparison is not about criticism or one-upmanship but about a genuine difference between disciplines addressing similar but still distinguishable ground. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd certainly be interesting to have an article comparing Mead and Asch. Or as there are two social psychology pages, it could be discussed/linked to on either. As for having an article dedicated to debates between sociologists and economists over the primacy of effects, that'd also be good, but of course within sociology itself, we already have the grandest of all economic determinists, Marx, to contrast with the doyen of sensible-talking social theory, Max Weber! --Tomsega (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Marx was not an economic determinist. Rather, one major view of Marx is that he was an economic determinist. Now, this reading of Marx may be the dominant one among sociologists, but there are other readings, and other forms of Marxism. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's a general comment on not pigeon-holing any thinker so explicitly, then I agree, but otherwise I can't think of a thinker who epitomises economic determinism more than Marx. Material was the basis of his philosophy. --Tomsega (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As marxists like George Battaile pointed out, materialism is not the sme thing as economic determinism. "self interest" and other core economic concepts like "scarcity" and "need" or "wants" are actually not material, they are rather fuzzy concepts and economists quantify them by turning material things into abstract things. Isn't the first chapter of capital all about how money is really an abstraction, the matter it is made of being, um, immaterial? About how a materialist analysis of capitalism shows that its economy is really more like magic and religion than anything else? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Granted money is abstracted human labour; that its qualities for the Marxists are far more complex than those set forward by the shallower political economists. That is an important point. But I am not denying that in my conception of Marxist 'material', and it is hardly surprising the Marxists would defend Marx and attack 'economic determinism', to the extent the term it is usually meant pejoratively. Perhaps, in not seeing money as anything more than solid wealth on a table, the average stockbroker is more of a materialist than Marx. Nevertheless, contrasting the historical materialism of Marx with something such as the elective affinities of Weber, Marx was an economic determinst, and nobody has built a greater, more prophetic system of material since. If Marx were less of a determinist, history might have unfolded to leave him looking less mistaken. --Tomsega (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope you did not misunderstand me: I was not saying that marx is NOT a materialist, and I was NOT claiming that you were suggesting that he is not a materialist, I was just saying there is a difference between Marx's materialist view of the world (like the atomist philosophers he wrote his doctoral thesis on) and "economy." I would add only two points: I think it is important to distinguish between Marx the revolutionary and Marx the philosopher/historian. I know marx might object, but it is important if one is to understand what Marxists in Academe often reach very different conclusions from Marxists in the Communist Party. Also, I would add that a concept of "structure" is essential to Marxist social science as much as "materialism." The diffeence between marx's materialist approach and Weber's hermeneutic approach explains how "structure' means different things in their respective works, but the role of structure (in both works) is important to what makes it "social science" I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the predictive ability of a theory is a measure of whether it was intended as materialism or determinism. I liked the "normative" distinction you used above. Normative statements are not science, so they must not be sociology as such - although the observation of normative systems is of course very much part of sociology. Not all of Marx or Marxist beliefs are "the scientific or systematic study of society". I agree, economics as such is not generally sociology but it may be in some cases if the aim is along the lines of the observations (not value-judgments) Marx tried to make. Same with political philosophies in general, and any other moral or ethical statements - none of these are part of an objective study of society qua society unless they clearly set out to be. I think for any system mentioned in this article, if there is a major counter-argument out there, it must also be part of sociology, or neither should be in the article. Fixentries (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope you guys keep on contributing to the page, you sound knowledgeable. It's on the verge of being a very good article! --Tomsega (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the section as a stub, and it was intended to be perfected. Thanks to you all for dedicating the time to discuss how to improve it. Normally I would help improve the section and the whole page, but my (quote) "poor and confusing use of English" does not qualify me for the task. I won't be doing any more edits to this page, since that's clearly the prerogative of users with better English than myself. Ladril (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Subfields of sociology

I am working on subfields of sociology. See my talk comment there for more info. Comments appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Who removed information about Social Anthropology?

This discipline has a major overlap into Sociology. It focuses on how humans function as groups in societies and how things happens in the societies.

Why did someone remove it? I have already revised it. Please leave this section alone and allow someone who is a professional to make revisions to this section to make it more relevant to how they overlap together.

Apparently the person who removed the section about Social Anthropology has no such experience with any part of Anthropology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This part of the article is entitled 'scope and topics', and should not constitute a list of every discipline under the sun that happens to analyse aspects of society. If we are to include social anthropology, logically we are going to have to include political science, social philosophy, human geography, perhaps even history. Social anthropology is more appropriately mentioned in the 'see also' section. Other than that, I removed the edit primarily because the implementation was poor: repetitive language, use of "it's" rather than "it is", etc etc.

Whether or not I have any experience with anthropology is nothing you could possibly know! I won't get caught up in an edit battle but if anybody else out there feels social anthropology shouldn't be in a 'scope and topics of sociology' section, by all means you have my consent to remove it. --Tomsega (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Nobody is denying that sociology and anthropology can overlap. Anybody who has studied the social sciences (e.g., probably all of the main editors of this article) knows that the different fields have their intersections. It was removed because it's not a sub-field of sociology, but rather a division of the social sciences as a whole. The lengthy description contained weasel words and, overall, probably had too much space devoted to it for this article. I think a case--a convincing one, in fact--most certainly can be made for mentioning social anthropology in this article (and, if you look, you'll notice that a shorter version of the earlier paragraph currently is in there). But this mention has to be made in proportion to its significance, and the presentation of social anthropology as sociology's BFF seemed a little over-the-top. Now, having said all that, I'm not the one who removed it. But the rationale for removing or reducing it most certainly does not appear to stem from any sort of anthropological ignorance. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be the first to point out that I... um, just contradicted myself--saying that a case can be made for mentioning social anthropology, when before I had said I'm unconvinced that even mentioning it would be proper. What I mean (or what I meant to mean, or what I now mean, or whatever) is that, although one could argue persuasively that social anthropology is relevant enough to warrant mention, one has to go a step further and actually WP:PROVEIT. For example, I can come up with sources (and, if one would like, would be glad to do so) that treat social psychology as a branch of sociology. But do they do the same for social anthropology? Do others even emphasize the connections between social anthropology and sociology? Perhaps they do, and I'd be happy to give editors a chance to confirm this. But the article can't just say, essentially, "Sociologists study X and social anthropologists also study X; therefore social anthropology is sociology's closest cousin." If it is mentioned, it has to be mentioned in accordance with how it is actually regarded, and I remain unconvinced that the current phrasing and positioning are reflective of the scholarly consensus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The section simply concerns the 'scope and topics' of sociology. Not 'related fields'. Granted, the inclusion of media and cultural studies adds to the confusion, but I believe the rationale there is that those disciplines arose from and with sociology, and continue to be taught predominantly from within sociology departments. Anthropology, however, is an entirely distinct discipline with its own history and trajectory.

Furthermore, the actual social anthropology page itself is highly unreferenced and seems to confuse itself with cultural anthropology. --Tomsega (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, although it seems that a lot of university departments comprise both social anthropology and sociology, I'm not having any luck finding sources that emphasize their similarities. I'm guessing that this chapter eventually gets into a comparison--the mention of "structure and function" on the first page seems a decent hint, but even that very sentence states that social anthropology "is primarily a product of British anthropology" (emphasis mine), and says nothing whatsoever about sociology. Given that I'm the creator and the primary editor of an article about an anthropologist, Canto2009 may rightfully assume that I share some of his sentiments; I most definitely agree that sociologists and anthropologists can learn a great deal from each other. However, I'm agreeing more and more with Tomsega that the point has been misplaced within this article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Social anthropology is less known that sociology. As such, I think it is sufficient to have a Social_anthropology#Overlapping_studies_into_Sociology section in that article, no need to link it from here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Key figures

Does anyone else find these 95%-blue paragraphs a bit unwieldy? They're informative, yes, but they already link to List of sociologists, and WP:LISTs exist precisely in order to avoid list-like prose in normal articles. Perhaps these paragraphs ought to be trimmed down to just the most prominent figures? Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes: if this article is ever to achieve a higher quality ranking, those long lists of names are going to have to go. But to some extent it's making up cheaply for what's missing in the rest of the article. Crucially, those big names need to be integrated narratively into the other sections (or the history of sociology article). We just need a good concise sentence for each (e.g "Meanwhile in the late 1800s, W. E. B. Du Bois and Charlotte Gilman....")

If the list does go, better check those names have actually made it to the list of sociologists page. Some are no doubt missing! --Tomsega (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the list of names and merged the second two sections, as most of the 'founding figures' were introduced step by step in the 'institutionalizing the academic discipline' section. Do you think this works? Any other ideas?

For the time being, here is the list of names, derived from the previous, that still need to be integrated into the article, in any section:

Classical figures: Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Engels, Herbert Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Gabriel Tarde, Thorstein Veblen, George Herbert Mead, Charles Cooley, Werner Sombart, W. E. B. Du Bois, Moisey Ostrogorsky, Charlotte Gilman, Antonio Gramsci, Florian Znaniecki, György Lukács, Maurice Halbwachs.

Contemporary figures: Louis Althusser, Jean Baudrillard, Simone de Beauvoir, Ulrich Beck, Howard S. Becker, Daniel Bell, Robert Bellah, Peter Berger, Andre Béteille, Herbert Blumer, Pierre Bourdieu, Michael Burawoy, Ernest Burgess, Judith Butler, Manuel Castells, Dieter Claessens, Ralf Dahrendorf, Guy Debord, Terry Eagleton, Gilberto Freyre, Steve Fuller, Herbert Gans, Ernest Gellner, Paul Gilroy, Barney Glaser, Erving Goffman, Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart, Bell Hooks, Luce Irigaray, Fredric Jameson, Julia Kristeva, Bruno Latour, Gerhard Lenski, Seymour Martin Lipset, Niklas Luhmann, Michel Maffesoli, Herbert Marcuse, Marcel Mauss, Robert K. Merton, Ralph Miliband, Nicos Poulantzas, John Rex, George Ritzer, Dorothy Smith, Pitirim Sorokin, M.N. Srinivas, Anselm Strauss, John Thompson, Barry Wellman, Edvard Westermarck, and Raymond Williams. --Tomsega (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What you've done so far looks good, and I'll let you know if anything else comes to mind. As for now, my only quibble is with the line, "Durkheim, Marx and Weber are typically cited as the three principal founders of sociology; their theory may be fittingly attributed to discourses of functionalism, conflict theory and anti-positivism respectively." I'd say that the attribution is the other way around: Durkheim and Marx weren't drawing from "functionalism" or "conflict theory", respectively (I doubt that those terms even existed in their day); rather, the discourses of these 20th-century schools can be attributed (in part) to the associated 19th-century theorists. This might strike one as pretty obvious and straightforward, but I've heard highly educated people say things like, "Marx was a conflict theorist" without indicating that this is a retroactive classification, even though--for reasons that, according to at least one source, may be noteworthy--it is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with such lists (blue paragraph), but recently I've been thinking that what is better is a nice table - it can have more info, eye candy stuff (thumb images, flags, whatnot), and even be sortable :) PS. I am really impressed with how this article has been progressing lately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Cosmic Latte: 'Conflict theorist' is a retroactive classification of Marx, but so is 'Marxist', as he pointed out in one of his most famous quotes "All I know is that I am not a Marxist"!! But anyway, yes the sentence should be written to acknowledge those terms came later. I'll try this: "Durkheim, Marx and Weber are typically cited as the three principal figures in sociology; their theory is central to the modern categories of functionalism, conflict theory and anti-positivism respectively."

@ Piotr: I quite liked the blue lists over not having those names mentioned at all, but they're not really appropriate, and we do indeed already have a list of sociologists. Now all those names are saved above there's a big clear task everybody can chip in on to integrate those names properly into the article one by one, with full English and full references etc.--Tomsega (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be another discussion agreement on Social Anthropology section being here.

Please leave the Social Anthropology section alone. This fields does have a major overlap in Sociology because they both deal with human societies and structures that influence people's behaviors as a group. Traditionally the Social Anthropology studied non-western/non industrialized societies in other countries(a lot of time 3rd world) and Sociology would study western industrial societies. now Sociology has expanded to studying non-western/non industrialized societies and Social Anthropology are now including studies of western industrial societies and they have overlapped a lot.

IF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY CAN'T BE INCLUDED, THEN SOCIAL PYSCHOLOGY SECTION SHOULD NOT BE HERE TOO. SINCE SOCIAL PYSCHOLOGY SECTION IS INCLUDED, IT SEEMS FAIR TO INCLUDE SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY BECAUSE OF THE MAJOR OVERLAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a WP:RFC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Canto2009 provide a reference to back up his position. As of now, what we have is his personal opinion. And, although I agree with much of this opinion, I provided a source that does not exactly seem to trumpet the idea. Canto2009, if you can come up with citations to the contrary, then go for it. (By the way, social psychology is verifiably regarded as a subdiscipline of both psychology and sociology. In fact, social psychology reaches so far into each field that WP currently has three articles devoted to it: general, sociological, and psychological.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Conto2009: Social anthropology is not a subfield of sociology. And the article for social anthropology is crap anyway. --82.4.86.209 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with canto2009. They both have their major overlaps together. I do agree that if Social Psychology section is going to be here, then it is fair that Social Anthropology section should be included too. Social Psychology belongs to the field of Psychology and Social Anthropology belongs to the field of Anthropology, however they converge very much with Sociology and if Social Psychology section is going to stay in this article, so should Social Anthropology. If none of the users can agree to have Social Anthropology section here because it belongs to Anthropology, then Social Psychology section should not belong here too because it belongs to psychology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taishan88 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, not convinced Canto2009 and Taishan88 are not one and the same person. --82.4.86.209 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same suspicion since day one (the 8th of November, to be precise, when both accounts suddenly started editing the article). Of course, I could be wrong (I haven't asked for an investigation, and I generally don't like to take that route); but either way, they should know (if only for the sake of knowing) that it is completely inappropriate to use multiple accounts in order to generate a phony "consensus". Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

all right, since there is a consensus that Social Anthropology should not be here since it belongs to anthropology even though they intercept with sociology like the way Social Psychology intercepts with Sociology like you all claim, it is fair to remove Social Psychology section because that belongs to psychology. so don't add Social Psychology section here anymore. The Social Psychology section is now removed.

There was consensus that social anthropology should be removed, so out of spite you removed social psychology as well? Social psychology (sociology) is a verifiable subfield of sociology. Social anthropology is simply not. Do not remove it, and please attach a signature to your comments. Further removal may constitute an act of vandalism and receive a warning. --Tomsega (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only this, Canto2009, it has appeared you have deleted the social psychology (sociology) article. This very much DOES constitute an act of vandalism.--Tomsega (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone locate and return the content of the social psychology sociology article that Canto2009 has deleted? I can't even find it so many bogus redirects have been created. --Tomsega (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Canto2009 and Taishan88, very probably the same user, if you continue to remove the social psychology section and vandalize its contents you will be blocked from wikipedia.--Tomsega (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems somebody has fixed the page-move (only an administrator can technically "delete" something). If Canto2009 would like to keep contributing to Wikipedia, I suggest he first take a long, hard look at WP:CON, WP:DE, WP:VAN, and WP:SOCK. And I would suggest that he pay special attention to the fourth: Disruption and even vandalism can at times be subtle, and any given consensus can be ambiguous (although I think it's pretty clear in this case), but using more than one account cannot be either. And, while multiple accounts can be used legitimately, if they are used without a good, clear reason, they can be detected by anyone with WP:CHECK access. So, once again: Canto2009, if you would like to contribute productively, please familiarize yourself with how to do so. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come into a convincing thought about social Anthropology and Sociology I have come into a convincing thought about social Anthropology not being part of the subfield of sociology and that there has not been reliable sources to argue that. however Social Anthropology still has a such a significant overlap and that is why I have included the social Anthropology section under the "Sociology and Other Academic Disciplines" instead of the sociology topics section of the article.

before any of you make any decisions, please come into a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canto2009 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the 'sociology and other academic disciplines' section, this is absolutely fine. No problem. (I moved this up into the previous discussion because there are already 3 discussion headings on it now! A bit much for a relatively trivial issue..) --Tomsega (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To Canto2009: Wikipedia attempts to form an objective encyclopaedia and should not contain original theory or research. Every edit you ever make consists of trying to overemphasise the relationship between social anthropology and sociology, not least in (a) using bold text on the word social anthropology in a manner outside of the wiki style guide, but also (b) by apparently halving the size of the 'See Also' section and typing (in bold!) "Social anthropology (sociology's sister study)"! This is ludicrous. All your efforts seem to amount to a one-man mission to obfuscate. By all means release an academic paper on your specialist topic, but for the time being stop alterting wikipedia purely to suit your own wishes. --Tomsega (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am with Tomsega and Cosmic Latte here, and this is something I actually know a lot about. If you look at sources from the lat 1800s or even early 1900s you will se people attempting to explain the relationship between social anthropology and sociology, or argue that the former is a subfield of the latter. It is important to bear two things in mind when reading such material: this was a period when what we think of as "departments" and disciplines was still in flux in the UK and the US, and the people writing were not historians of academia or social science explaining how things came to be, they were actual sociologists and social anthropologists who were fighting to establish new disciplines - there was a lot at stake here: whether someone would be a professor or a reader; how much autonomy one would have, and so on. By World War II things had changed quite a bit, and sociology and anthropology had emerged as distinct disciplines in both the US and UK.

The comparison with social psychology is not appropriate or helpful: social psychology is the name of a branch of psychology founded by such people as Solomon Asch. It is also the name of a branch of sociology, founded by such people as George Herbert Mead. I know this sounds confusing, but there you have it. One can be a social psychologist in a psychology department and never read a sociology journal; one can be a social psychologist in a sociology department and never read a psychology journal. Social psychology is the name of two subfields of two disciplines. One might wish that this coincidence would mean sociologists and psychologist have a lot to say to one another and talk to one another a lot. Nevertheless, they generally do not.

In the US anthropology programs are generally much smaller than sociology programs and many universities often merge them to save costs. This is not a natural fit. There are cultural anthropologists who read a great deal of research by evolutionary biologists. There is a tremendous overlap between anthropology and geography. Cultural anthropologists read books by Edward Said and Mary Louise Pratt, and people in English departments read books by Geertz and other anthropologists. If you were to look at the bibliographies of books and articles published by anthropologists in any givn year in the past thirty or forty years, you will see that anthropologists mostly cite other anthropologists - but when they cite people from other fields, it is more likely that they will cite someone from philosophy, geography, comparative literature, and so on, than that they will cite a sociologist. So, cultural or social anthropologists do talk to other academics, many of them not sociologists. The decision to put sociologists and anthropologists in the same department is invariably an administrative one and it is utterly uninformative about the nature of either discipline. Most sociologists I have med know very little about anthropology - even when they work in the sam department.

One thing that encyclopedia articles seldom give attention to is the fact that different acaemic isciplines often attract different personalities, and we would all better understand the relationships and chasms between historians, anthropologists, and geographers if we paid attention to personality. This can be a more decisive factor than the object of study or the body of theory or methods.

Be that as it may, one can say that anthropologists and sociologists look at groups of people. But the same is true of historians and human geographers. Clifford Geertz famously said anthropologists look at texts - he was speaking mtaphorically but his intent, like that of Ruth Benedict when she gave her AAA presidential address, was to say anthropology has a lot in common with comparative literature.

My main problem with Canto's campaign to put a plug for sociology in every anthropology article is that it unfairly singles out one other discipline when one can just as easily put in political science, economics, and psychology (there are branches of anthropology called political anthropology, economic anthropology, and psychological anthropology). But it is also misleading. How often do sociologists today cite anthropologists in their journals? I am sure it happens. It might be informative if someone did a statistical analysis. My guess is that the frequency is low, and perhaps even insignificant (i.e. what one would expect if sociologists chose to cite other disciplines at random).

Personally, I do not think any encyclopedia articl can ever provide an adequate explanation, for space considerations. But anyone who has hung around lots of sociologists and lots of anthropologists for a long time surely will discover that they speak different languages een if they all read Marx and Weber, and some Durkheim or Simmel. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! --Tomsega (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Child Poverty

Have tried to clean up the Child Poverty article. Most of the information came straight out of UNICEF. If anyone can add anything further that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thought this was the Sociologiy Wikiproject Talk Page. Will move the comment to there. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Epistemology and ontology section

I think the Epistemology and Ontology does a poorer job of capturing that subject than the "Positivism and Antipositivism" section. Since the Positivism & Antipositivism section is quite well-written and thorough, the elaboration in the E&O section is unnecessary. Though this conflict is quite important historically, having two sections about epistemological debates on the main sociology article misrepresents its present-day significance. Both "positivism" & (especially) "antipositivism" are historical terms and are not a good fit for present-day research. My guess is that very few researchers would identify as either one or the other. "Analytic" VS "interpretive" (and especially "quantitative" and "qualitative") would be more current terms for epistemological/methodological splits in the discipline, but they are better as references to research rather than researchers. The current trend in the discipline is towards mixed-methods research, which usually takes the form of a mixture of interpretive and statistical methods. There are certainly debates that are drawn across lines that resemble these, but they are not the positivist-antipositivist debate per se: they are more like debates over whether public sociology is a good idea, whether qualitative methods can have the reliability of quantitative work, or what sociology's stance towards evolutionary biology should be, etc, etc. These debates echo the positivist vs antipositivist one, but they are nowhere as fundamental or as polarizing, and many sociologists pay little heed to them.

My point in bringing this up is this: the Positivism & Antipositivism section is quite good, but what it needs is a short conclusion--not a whole second section detailing the many specific stances further academics have taken on the issue. The vast majority of sociological writing is about the *content* of sociology and is not particularly concerned with epistemology--and there is no reason for the main sociology article to devote so much space to it. I would like to delete the E&O section and slightly expand the P&A section by talking about how today the debate is a creative tension that is present but plays a background role. (The conclusion could also talk about how the different national traditions of sociology have diverged on this.)

P.S., I also wanted to point out that we should be much more careful about referring to present-day research as either positivist or antipositivist. Very few currently writing academics belong clearly in one camp or another, and even fewer actually identify with those terms. If it is necessary to make these distinctions about contemporary research, we should strive to be more precise: one of qualitative/interpretive/humanistic or quantitative/analytic/scientific will usually be more appropriate than positivist/antipositivist (n.b., the words in each triplet are not synonymous).

P.P.S., thanks for reading all of this if you have--I apologize for my wordiness. DarwinPeacock (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So are you planning on rewriting the sections? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am planning on doing this. Just didn't want to blow away a whole section of the article with no warning. DarwinPeacock (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it helpful to move such sections that re being removed to talk, so others can try to rewrite and rescue them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to this section being removed. Incorporated within it are two topics/articles, in the philosophy of social science and structure and agency, which are of huge significance. I sometimes find, Darwin -- not criticising you at all by saying this because you've made some great contributions -- that you speak from a particularly American perspective regarding what you think sociology is/should be. Perhaps you were brought up in a strongly quantitative and pragmatic tradition. Sociology, for me, is very close to social philosophy, and looking at sociology in the vein of Weber, Habermas, Foucault and Giddens, epistemology and ontology are at the forefront of discussion, and abstract concepts which might seem redundant to the rigid statistician (modernity and postmodernity, for example) have an almost limitless significance. Strict, number crunching sociology is important, but the discipline was founded as a radical critique of modernity..

Structure and agency is far too important not to mention. At the very least we'd require a 'Structure and agency' section. As it happens when I created the section I called it 'Epistemology and ontology' -- ontology encapsulating that. Peter Winch's criticism of the social sciences is very fundamental and famous, Foucault's even more so. The dialogue between Foucault, Habermas and Rorty is one of the most invigorating in recent intellectual history and shows how the gap is closing between sociology and philosophy after the linguistic turn, phenomenology, and post-structuralist trends.

I agree there should be a strong divide between epistemological debates over positivism that are almost purely academic and the reality of empirical social research as it informs businesses and governments. But I think the article does this quite well, or at least, better with a separate epistemology/ontology section dedicated to deeper philosophical questions. There is a separate 'Research' section which pays more attention to practical methodology, sampling, etc. --Tomsega (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede, though, that the section is a bit too wordy and difficult. It could also do with being moved down the page for the time being (this is where it was placed for a long time originally).--Tomsega (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tomsega--thanks a lot for your response. There are definitely strong splits about what sociology is/should be, and I think it's really important for us to have conversations like this to figure out how to steer the page towards being inclusive and representative of what's going on in the discipline as a whole. We all have our own perspectives on these issues, but I think we've been doing a great job of working together on this, and I hope we continue to do so.

It sounds like much of the material in that section should be kept, though I still think it should be reorganized and reframed. As with a number of other sections of this article, it doesn't have much of a clear narrative, which makes it a bit hard to follow. (It would probably be clearer if the Structure & Angency bit was separated from the antipositivist bit.) The substantive problems I have with this section is that it doesn't place these debates in the greater disciplinary context, and that it doesn't elucidate the quantitative position on sociology. (As a side note, this position should not be confused with either number crunching or policy/business work: it is an effort to construct sociological theory, only from a very a different epistemological perspective.) I am going to start hacking away at this, and hopefully we can get it to a point we're both happy with. DarwinPeacock (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And here's the result of this. Pretty much the original + context + quantitative response to epistemological challenges. Hope it works. P.S., I intend to clarify the antipositivist critiques and turn them more into a narrative when I have a bit more time (or you are welcome to do this as well of course) DarwinPeacock (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay cool, I like it. I've made some very minor adjustments on the page. Most obvious being that I certainly think the section can still be entitled 'ontology and epistemology'! Otherwise I haven't changed much except a few corrections to punctuation. Also, separated Habermas quote and added another quote on Giddens' view of the 'Third wave' of social theory after the 1960s. Tried only to make these adjustments to the sections I myself have written and leave yours as they are. --Tomsega (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, it's looking good. I agree that the O & E title is better. I think I should rename some of the subheadings too. One comment though--I think the "quotation" form is a bit too attention-grabbing for quotes from secondary sources, like with the Cassell quote here or the Harris one above (there's a "quote" template that makes text not stand out as much). The way that the "quotation" bits stand out from the text breaks up the flow in a way that I think works well with forceful primary quotes, but not so well with secondary one. I don't know if this makes sense, but it's like the "quotation" bits are us breaking up the narrative to include somebody describing their stance in their own language. I'd personally prefer the "quotation" template reserved for a few key quotes from primary sources that really sum up somebody's stance in their own words--and the "quote" (or just paraphrasing) to be used otherwise. What do you think? DarwinPeacock (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree actually. Secondary sources and editors don't deserve these stand-out quote boxes. The Harris and Cassell ones might be better off just in speech marks. The Habermas quote as well really.--Tomsega (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Article getting too long

Hey, I am again concerned that we're making this article grow too long. My initial attempt to shorten the article by removing the epistemology/ontology bits instead turned out to, umm, lengthen it instead. Though this particular incidence might be attributable to my editorial skills, I think in general this kind of info creep might continue to happen whenever the choice stands between removing material or contextualizing/balancing it--the balance will always make the article grow longer. So, I do not want to advocace either the slash-and-burn or the balance-everything approach, because I think neither will work in the long run. But I want to reiterate again that the overall length of this article is something of a concern--even though the quality of the material here is getting better and better.

Pretty much, I think the problem is the level of detail. If you look at the other disciplinary articles, they are generally quite shorter and easier to glance through than this one (e.g., economics, anthropology, philosophy, physics). For the most part, they consist of much less "expert" material than this article--mostly shorter, easier-to-read summaries of topics rather than detailed expositions with lots of terminology. While we have better content and writing than a number of those, we function poorer as an overview piece than most of them. A casual reader wanting to learn about sociology from this page would quickly get frightened away (which would not happen with, say, the biology page). The difference that they employ short, simple summaries that link to the expert-level articles: and I really think that's the only way to go for a top-level disciplinary article. (Don't get me wrong, I think the detailed stuff is the essential content of wikipedia--it's should just go into its own pages).

In this light, I am really not a big fan of stuff like the expansion of the functionalism/structuralism bit. As always, the expansion is well written and good from an expert-historical point of view, but it would be quite hard to get through for a casual reader (and this is a matter of the material and detail, not of writing--I think summarizing is the only way to make this easier). I agree that some of this stuff needs to be on the main page, but the main page is also missing other important theoretical components. If we've going to have long exposes on the (largely historical) functionalism/structuralism stances, we will also need another long expose on contemporary theoretical perspectives (most importantly Mertonian mid-range theory and analytical sociological theory, but also relational (network) theory, field theory, etc). Then, we would need a third bit to explain how they relate in time, geographical distribution, etc. The result would be very long and quite unwieldy. I think in the end, some version of all this material should get a on this article, or at least a clear reference to a page that mentions it-- but the only way to do that is to compact what we have now first, and let go of some of the niceties of including material in its full nuance and detail. We could also consider beefing up the mid-level articles, like the "social theory" and "sociological theory" pieces. I think that's the only way of getting to an article that is both comprehensive and easy to read.

Overall, I think we should try to shorten the article by 30% or so before inserting new blocks of material (and I mean 30% of text, not of white space--shorter sections are easier to read; though overall shortening is good, too). I would love to hear everybody's opinions on this. (Posting a link to this on the wikiproject as well, btw). DarwinPeacock (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing, though indeed it is difficult because the content itself has been continually improving. I elaborated on one section further today because I think it is vitally mportant to delineate the differences between functionalism, structuralism, and the comparative irrelevance of 'conflict theory', because so many school text books are so useless at explaining this stuff they make sociology sound trivial.

One thought I had was simply to remove the "20th century developments section" as this entire part is copied in full and available on the history of sociology page. The problem with this little history section, though I myself wrote at least 50% of it, is that it is difficult to pick one narrative topic in describing the history of sociology, as we know it's a discipline of subfields. The emphasis at present is on the concept of modernity, which might form a backbone concept for the major theorists of the 20th century (Giddens, Habermas, etc), but is far from relevant to everything. (What was it again Randall Collins said about sociology 'losing all coherence as a discipline'?!) Also, I worry the article paints an image of sociology that is overly radical and pseudoscientific: there shouldn't be TOO much emphasis on things like critical theory and postmodernism (even if they are important) over methodological developments and research.

An even more simple thing would be to remove all unnecessary images, which I think is just about every image below the positivism section. --Tomsega (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the following changes, which can be undone if you do not think it works: (1) removed 20th century history section entirely, (2) removing non-essential info about critical realism (my own addition) from structure and agency section (3) removed 4-5 non-essential images.

What do you think? --Tomsega (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Way to be bold! I think these are all good moves. I think removing the 20th century section is a great move for reducing the length (though I don't remember what was in it off the top of my head so am not sure if something important is missing now--I'm going to give the whole page a read-over when I have a minute). I also agree with cutting down on the room taken up by images, though I think images in general can be useful because they break up the text and make the page easier to take in without actually taking up too much room. So I am going to shrink the size of the images on this page and maybe insert a few of the other ones back. But I think we're on the same page here. DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I think with the 20th century section entirely removed it nicely shifts more emphasis to the social research section.

Just making one minor change: I think the Structure and Agency section should be moved up between functionalism and research afterall, actually, keeping the remaining section just on epistemology. You might be able to come up with a better title for the section, or trim some of the paragraphs if possible. --Tomsega (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will edit it and trim it, or maybe even distribute it to other sections if I can. DarwinPeacock (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All right, I just spent most of the day editing this thing. I cut a big section and wrote a big section. The result is about the same length as when I started, so I didn't achieve much shortening--but I hope the content is improved. Mostly, I removed much of my contemporary epistemology stuff and added material on 3 other types of positivism and on postpositivism. I will try to shorten things more via more compact phrasings and removal of detail when I have more time. In the process I paraphrased or cut lots of stuff. I hope you don't mind these edits--some of it was definitely on your turf. I think the whole thing is more coherent and complete now (but then again, it's my edits, so it's probably not too surprising that I think so). Thoughts? (... and now I am going to go have a drink to celebrate/lament the single longest editing session I've ever had on wikipedia) DarwinPeacock (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, Great updates. There was a slight bit of repetition in the first sentence on positivism as it already states Comte came up with sociology and positivism a couple of paragraphs higher up - just shortened the opening of that paragraph slightly. Also, I'd really like to keep that Simmel quote in. I realise the goal at hand is to shorten the article but I think it's a really attractive piece of sociological writing. --Tomsega (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Know what, I think we could almost start pushing for featured article status (having said that if the article is nominated a few dozen people will immediately start hacking away at it!) --Tomsega (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. FA is a great thing to aim for--though we're not quite there yet! I think there's still lots of tightening to do. (Didn't realize FA nomination brought swarms of editors, but makes sense.) DarwinPeacock (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we shorten Sociology#Foundations of the academic discipline?

It's a very professionally-written section and seems very complete, but it appears to me to be too based around links: it's more of an index than a narrative. Since all this info is already in the history article, I am considering replacing the detailed text with a narrative summary (for example, I leave out most names of universities and professional associations; I would also shorten or remove my own bit on Parsons at the end of the section). I think the section can be shortened by half or more this way. What do you think? DarwinPeacock (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not an effective narrative as such but it's informative. I think the last paragraph on Parsons is quite nice but unnecessary/contradictory: at first we allude to Marx, Durkheim and Weber being the "big three" in sociology... and then there's a paragraph on Parsons NOT in fact including Marx in his big three! His success, I think, was introducing Durkheim and Weber to American audiences, not in coming up with this tripartite canon. Durkheim was always bound to be recognised as a father of sociology, as would I suggest Weber, as would I suggest Marx! --Tomsega (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Parsons paragraph, moving some information up to the paragraph on American sociology. I also took some of your good information on the superfluity of functionalism, trimmed that section down, and placed it below. I've entitled this "After functionalism". You might prefer a different title. Actually rather than the whole section being entitled "Functionalism and conflict theory" it might more appropriately be entitled "theoretical frameworks" or something, with functionalism, conflict theory, etc, subheaded below.

Now that you have expanded the positivism section so thoroughly, I believe the 'Modern epistemology and practise' section really sticks out as the section that is too long. Some of this information could just be implemented further up the page, no? --Tomsega (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 2 edits by Jagged 85 in May 2007 and 5 more edits in November 2007 and September 2007. Tobby72 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any issues with this page, but if what you are saying is correct there is a chance his edits to the Islamic sociology and Sociology in medieval Islam pages might be suspect.--Tomsega (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment on sociology portal image

Currently the image assigned to the sociology portal is a diagram illustrating a social network. While social network theory is the dominant theoretical paradigm in sociology currently, that is all it is: a passing theoretical craze that will transform over time into another set of engagements. Social Network is a series of social relationships that links a person directly to other individuals (such as friends) and indirectly to even more people. (Halasz, 'Social Structure and the Individual') The image of the network does not reflect the discipline as a whole, and should be replaced with one that does.

Jon EP1 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people who see this portal bar will equate the image generally with 'a picture of an individual connected to society' and not specifically with social network analysis. I think it's quite effective. If you could locate a superior image in the commons, however, it could of course be changed.. --Tomsega (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaps in theoretical frameworks

Currently, this section has three subsections: Functionalism, Conflict theory and Contemporary social theory. I think there are significant gaps; intro texts do vary with regards to which theories, exactly, they list, but they usually list more then three. Symbolic interactionism, for example, is the one that quickly comes to mind, and likely, we should try to be more comprehensive then your average textbook. In my intro courses, I usually mention - if briefly - the existence of socio-evolutionary theories, sociobiology, critical theory, ecological theory, the feminist approach, and I do think I am forgetting some :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The only issue is the length of the article. --Tomsega (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science

There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

As of today, 1. March 2011 this page seems to be heavily vandalized. Various Names have been changed into actors and popstars. Many adjectives changed to different ones too. Corrected first few paragraphs, but they seem too many for me to do it alone. (How I hate vandals!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularity Rider (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you, Singularity Rider!

LookingGlass (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Satire and Decline

It's interesting that my comments about whether the article should include reference to the (alleged) decline in numbers applying to study Sociology at universities, and the fact that it became the butt of Oxbridge satirists in the Seventies have been deleted. Did they touch a raw nerve? Poshseagull (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

~~Apologies if I deleted any of your comments on a talk page. This was definitely inadvertent. - ^Darwin/_Peacock^[Talk] 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Never mind. Don't know why I read this question as directed to me. And I agree with Tomsega (below) that the satire isn't Wikipedia-worthy unless it is somehow exceptionally notable, for much the same reasons that Tomsega lists. If there is indeed a well-documented decline in sociology enrollments net of the general decline in social science or liberal arts enrollments, then this may be relevant material for this page (with the requisite references, of course). - ^Darwin/_Peacock^[Talk] 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There are many generalised-remark-type-jokes about psychologists and mathematicians and lawyers and teachers, and none of that sort of stuff would be appropriate for those respective wiki pages. If sociology is declining in popularity, or is sometimes lumped along with media studies as a less-than-serious degree, it's the result of so many people having no idea what sociology is, and so regurgitating myths. Wikipedia shouldn't jump on that bandwagon. I think to be honest a lot of people view sociology as inherently radical or lefty and so dislike it for that reason. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (a sociological term for you).

I'm sure the social sciences and humanities in general will see an overall decline in applications, given that university has become so impossibly expensive for working class people, for whom only business or vocational degrees are now viable. Which is a great shame because the system-changing ideas that the world needs right now are entirely absent from most business, law and economics degrees.--Tomsega (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Theory

'American biologist Edward O. Wilson defines “society” as “a group of individuals belonging to the same species and organized in a co-operative manner. ”' However is this link to an opinion piece on sociology really just spamming? Feeling that it is I've corrupted it. If anyone would like to quote sections as referencess to points they wish to make regarding the article (nb Talk pages are not for general discussion) then please feel free, after having substantiated the matter, to revert. LookingGlass (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

--Piramide100? (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)== Revision for Racial achievement gap in the United States ==

Currently the article is under Wikipedia: WikiProject Sociology. The racial achievement gap in the United States covers broad areas in sociology such as education, equality, racial issues, culture and social stratification. Currently, the article is in need of improvement, and I hope to make several revisions to increase the objectivity and depth of the article. I would argue that this article deserves some attention as the achievement gap is one of the biggest educational issues in the US. Therefore, it is important for the Wiki community to provide multiple perspectives to allow for greater understanding of the issue. I would like to boost the (1)references to reputable sources, (2) objectivity of the viewpoints, (3) encyclopedic language that is often associated with a great Wikipedia article. Furthermore, I would like to expand upon the "Evidence", "Implications", and "Success Stories" of the current article, as I feel these sections are missing certain facets of the issue. I would very much appreciate any feedback or suggestions! Thank you. AlisaYu (talk) 21:06, 09 March 2012 (UTC) Genda inequality still exist in the Unite States (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25149647).

Sociological Perspectives

I couldn't help but notice that this article doesn't mention the three sociological perspectives neatly. Functionalism and Conflict Theory are mentioned under "Theoretical frameworks" but Symbolic Interactionism isn't under that category. It's linked under conflict theory, but there is no information on it within the entire article. This topic is so basic, yet important in understanding sociology, that it's normally in the first chapter or lecture of any sociology book or class. I just thought it should be given at least a paragraph like the other two are with a main article link. SoKwik (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea that there are absolutely and specifically "three sociological perspectives" is a product of oversimplified high-school-ish textbooks, or people following their subjective course materials too rigidly. I think it's better for discipline that we move away entirely from the idea of functionalism and conflict theory, terms which are used often as fluffy synonyms for the right and left wings.

But if you want to expand on a decent symbolic interactionism section, go ahead! --Tomsega (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully everyone can understand it, you can find out a lot on your own with basic knowledge and understanding as well as observing and being aware of your surroundings, cause and effect and the actions of others. Unless you just completely have zero common sense or are just oblivious. Lindsay Sunde (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition (in the lead)

I think we need a section on the definition of sociology. Anyone knows any good sources for that? As there is no one clear, obvious definition, it would be nice if we can find any reliable source which discusses the definitions, hopefully pointing out to the most common elements (ex. that 75% of definitions use the word society, 80% relationship, 25% structure, and so on). Alternatively, we may have do cite a number of different definitions, and try to arrive at a short, comprehensive version (or chose "the best one") for the lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary has

Sociology is the scientific study of human social behavior and its origins, development, organizations, and institutions. The American Heritage® Science Dictionary. [5])

The American Sociological Association [6] has

Sociology is:
• the study of society
• a social science involving the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies
• the study of our behavior as social beings, covering everything from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social processes
• the scientific study of social aggregations, the entities through which humans move throughout their lives

• an overarching unification of all studies of humankind, including history, psychology, and economics

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Science of society, social institutions, and social relationships, and specifically the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behaviour of organized human groups.

Social Roles are a set of expectations about the behavior and attitudes of people who occupy a particular social status. Role Conflict is the inconsistency between two or more of the roles we fill.

Columbia Encyclopedia

scientific study of human social behavior. As the study of humans in their collective aspect, sociology is concerned with all group activities-economic, social, political, and religious.

Editor2020 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I don't think we should use any dictionary definitions; there is no value in citing a dictionary here. (Btw, leads don't need citations unless its a point about a living individual or something very controversial.)

Sociology is more diverse than the "Study of society" The BSA website gives the following Sociology is the study of how society is organized and how we experience life. [7] Here it's not a study of society as such but by how society is organised and how we experiences this. This organisation is how we related to one another, interact with one another, and how we experience this. Studying society is an weak phrases and misses the opportunity to conveniently link to the many aspects of sociology via the the idea of the social. A look at the origins of the word itself may further shed light on the issue: socius, "companion"; and the suffix -ology, "the study of", from Greek λόγος, lógos, "knowledge". To reduces this to something abstract as "society", may work for a dictionary or for a functionalist view of the world, but would neither be OK for an encyclopaedia nor would it cover the diversity of the discipline. Mootros (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As already indicated the lead is not entirely conform with the MOS. Please see here: Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations. To move this on, most citations (if not all) should go to get this article up to standard. Your input is welcome. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations says

"there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Editor2020 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the relevant part of the MOS up. I assume we are not dealing with a complex case, as dictionaries were cited. Neither do I think there is any controversy. So further input please if people think otherwise. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Citation wise, the issue is that all content needs to be cited somewhere in the article. If we had a section on definitions, cited, it could be summarized in the lead without any cites. But as long as the definition in the lead is the only one in the article, we need to cite it.

Refs wise, secondary sources are preferred to tetriary, so I'd try to avoid general encyclopedias or dictionaries. Sociological ones would be better, as would, if we could find it, any peer reviewed piece that actually discusses the definition of sociology. The problem we have is, of course, that there is a ton of definitions of sociology, but cherry picking some, even at random, is not a good solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as long as the definition in the lead is the only one in the article, we need to improve it and cite it elsewhere. The new definition section could be called "Academic discipline" or some thing like this and should be the first section. I would suggest we use a range of definitions from different (standard) textbooks thereby trying to show the broadness and diversity.

Also this section Sociology#Areas_of_sociology should be merged into our new one. I see the listed content more as closely related areas rather than actual constituting parts. I sum, in the new section we want to show the scope of the discipline and how it relates to others. Mootros (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am at a loss here trying to understand why this is problematic, so not sure I can contribute anything useful. It seems to me there is nothing wrong with the broad statement that Sociology is the systematic study (i.e., science) of society. Meclee (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Primarily because of concerns over WP:V policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Banned user

This article has been edited by a banned user (WP:BAN) who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 6 major edits by Jagged 85. Tobby72 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Political economy section?

How about adding a section on political economy as a branch of sociology. There are enough sociologists who focus on issues of political economy (e.g., neoliberalism, globalisation, etc) to justify the creation of such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Critisism Section Needed

Without a doubt, Sciology as a legitimate science is open to legitimate debate. For the sake of factual accuracy and thoroughness, that debate should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.226.170 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 Need a critisism section. There is somes sources I found: This https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own#toc16 and this : https://fr.theanarchistlibrary.org/library/l-encyclopedie-anarchiste-s#toc67. The indivudualist anarchist movement claim that Sociology is not a science, but just a remain of christian morality which it's justifie through the divine concept and abstraction called "society", "mankind", "people" etc. But like God, it's just a spook to devide us. (devide and rule strategy) Bye :)

Why is it that Economics has a criticism section while Sociology does not? There have been many criticisms of sociology over the decades and I believe these justify a section of their own. For instance, sociology’s questionable status as a science, and the qualitative methods sociology often makes use of such as survey data. I’m happy to draft a criticism section with appropriate citations included? Sadke4 (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Great article

A great article, it gives the reader a lot of information about sociology. Abbadisaleh (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Saudiaramcoworld.com as a source. The website is owned by AramcoWorld, a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco. Fully state owned company of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

I added ^{[unreliable source]}. According to Wikipedia guidelines religiously affected or directly state funded sources fall under "Biased or opinionated sources" category of "Identifying reliable sources" guidelines.

Saudiaramcoworld.com is owned by AramcoWorld that is published by Aramco Services Company. Aramco Services Company is fully owned subsidiary of Saudi Aramco. A fully state (more precisely royal) owned company of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Aramco and Aramco Services Company has long history of Saudi royalty propaganda. Saudi war on Yemen, Israel-Palestine conflict...

Where are the women?

All of the photographs of sociologists are of men. Can we add some women? I'm new here, and have not yet learned how to insert images. So if I can find some images of women sociologists, can someone assist with adding them to the article? Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Here is a photo of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charlotte_Perkins_Gilman_c._1900.jpg Okay to add her photo?AnaSoc (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Jane Addams is also commonly listed in intro texts as a sociologist. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jane_Addams_-_Bain_News_Service.jpg AnaSoc (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Definition of conservatism

"Spencer was a critic of socialism as well as strong advocate for a laissez-faire style of government. His ideas were closely observed by conservative political circles". This statement assumes that conservatives support laissez-faire. This belief is widespread in English-speaking countries. It reflects the current definition of conservatism in those countries, but it does not reflect the definition of conservatism in Spencer's time. In the 19th century supporters of laissez-faire were called liberals, and laissez-faire was strongly opposed by people who called themselves conservatives. To a lesser extent the same can be said of present-day conservatism outside of English-speaking countries. In sum, this idiotic statement was written by somebody with a very provincial and ahistorical outlook. Strambotik (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms section should probably be included

There probably needs to be a criticisms section of sociology. There's major areas in which sociology has failed people: concepts such as blank slatism and John Money's doctrine which saw boys turned into girls at birth on the belief that you could socialize gender into them. Largely ignoring biology for most of the 20th century, something which continues today. I have seen articles on hard sciences with 'criticisms' sections so it seems rather odd that social sciences wouldn't have one. Sxologist (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

pathways and biology to decode human movement

it all starts with the nerve fibers and they canal the atoms protons through neruons through synapses vertabre called grey and wjite communicating rami sending signal to all the key organs one would ask how u know! i was an unwilling pertesapent in a lithargy of genomic test i later discovered biologic as well and iq testing for profilers serial killers and analyst gangs the mob and they try to blame the triad but i dont think so they on the this mislead trial learned littel to knone my spelling u might think is off but who are and what of your english! smarter men like ????I CANT NAME ONE BUT THEY HAVE TRIED TO MAP THE WHOLE GENOME AND AN AMERICAN SAID HE MAPPED MY WHOLE GENOME JONNIE SOMETHING OR OTHER WHICH IS ELEGAL AND UN ETHICAL UNDER PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION

Luizpuodzius

Seria uma boa dar uma traduzida neste artigo para destaca-lo na pp? att 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:A17F:1AC0:D86F:5700 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

^ in his Muqaddimah from the 14th century, later translated as Prolegomena in Latin), the introduction to a seven volume analysis of universal history, in which he advanced theories of social cohesion and social conflict
^ H. Mowlana 2001). "Information in the Arab World", Cooperation South Journal 1.
^ Dr. S. W. Akhtar (1997).

[1] s Muqaddimah from the 14th century, later translated as Prolegomena in Latin), the introduction to a seven volume analysis of universal history, in which he advanced theories of social cohesion and social conflict

[Mowlana-2] H. Mowlana 2001). "Information in the Arab World", Cooperation South Journal 1.

[Akhtar-3] Dr. S. W. Akhtar (1997).

[1]

[2]

[3]