Content deleted Content added
→Clean up still needed!: reply |
Anomalocaris (talk | contribs) m rm stripped </span> |
||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=Category|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Science|class=|importance=}}
}}
A great article, but it needs more information and and different sections[[User:Abbadisaleh|Abbadisaleh]] ([[User talk:Abbadisaleh|talk]]) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
==unsigned comment==
i would like to start some ideas here on some issues in todays world.
>>
maybe war?
this article could have more information and sections. [[User:Abbadisaleh|Abbadisaleh]] ([[User talk:Abbadisaleh|talk]]) 23:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
==Cleanup request==
This category has too many articles; they need to be sorted into new subcategories. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed. See [[Talk:Sociology/Archive. All talk before December 21, 2008#
::Have begun this task by creating 10 main subcategories and sorting various articles into them (see below). It still needs a lot of work, to go through the remaining articles and move them into the appropriate category, as well as coming up with some more logical subcategories. Some suggestions have been made below and also on [[Talk:Sociology]]. I have also created [[:Category:Articles not related to sociology]] to help clear them out of here if they don't belong. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sociology#Clean_up_of_Category:Sociology|here]] for discussion of tasks on WikiProject Sociology. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 02:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
== Sub categories ==
Is it usual for sub catgeories to be spread across different pages by the letters of listed articles below rather than being in their own list? It makes it very hard to understand what subcategories there are. <
:If you want all subcategories to be forced to be on the first page on Cat:Sociology, you need to edit them to the following form: <nowiki>[[Category:Whatever| ]]</nowiki>. Similarly if you want an article on, let's say, structural functionalism, to be listed not at s but at f in a given category, you would edit it to say <nowiki>[[Category:Whatever|F]]</nowiki>. As for alphabet listing of cats, I think you mean something like {{tl|compactTOC}}? I am not sure if this can be done, perhaps you should ask at [[Wikipedia:Categories]].--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
::Are people likely to have problems with me moving all the subcategories to the first page? To me it just makes much more sense to be able to see all of the subcategories immediately. Especially once our subcategories are systematic. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 01:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I can't disagree with that.--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
:::* I have moved some sociology sub categories to the top of the list. These are generic subcategories, such as Branches of sociology or Sociology books. I think non-generic ones are fine in alphabetical order. I have used <nowiki>[[Category:Sociology| 01]], [[Category:Sociology| 02]]</nowiki> etc to order them. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Line 20 ⟶ 28:
==Discussion of proposed changes==
:Sounds good, let's start cleaning this up. However I am not happy with the 'Sociological Organisation' name (aren't all organizations sociological?). Perhaps 'Organizations of sociologists' or 'Sociological associations' or 'Sociological research organizations' would be better...--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
::Yes Associations was the word I was looking for. I have changed it above. <
:::Actually we alread have [[:Category:Sociology journals]] and there are quite a few publications (many more not yet even stubbed on Wiki).--[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
Line 33 ⟶ 41:
* I have wondered if there might be a use for a [[:Category:Social stratification]], or [[:Category:Social class]], or something similar.
-- [[User:Zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[User_talk:Zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 01:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all the "sociology of" categories can be considered branches of sociology, rather than distinct theories, but I think we need to distinguish between paradigms, theories, and methods. Paradigms are the larger discourses/contexts in which theories are applied, e.g., structural functionalism is a paradigm, not a theory, because it is ontological and determines what theories are possible - i.e., ones that focus on social cohesion and consensus. A functionalist theory would be that society progresses from pre-modern mechanical solidarity to modern organic solidarity because of the division of labour. For functionalism, positivism is a method, not a theory explaining the way the social world works. Assuming that "social facts" are the right units of analysis, or that populations are the right level of analysis, doesn't tell us anything about the type of facts we would expect to see under certain historical and social conditions, nor about what phenomena are present and associated with those populations.<ref>Mouton, J, and Marais, H. C. (1988). ''Basic Concepts in the Methodology of the Social Sciences.'' Pretoria, South Africa: Humanities and Social Research Council Publishers. Ch. 6: "Central Concepts in the Research Process."</ref> There's lots of discussion on this in sections below, but I thought I'd add a note in this context. --Michael 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mikem1234|Mikem1234]] ([[User talk:Mikem1234|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikem1234|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
**Have changed all proposed names to be lower case
Line 69 ⟶ 79:
Can this be added to the list? I would assume that it fits...[[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|Be bold]]...--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<
:: I would, but when I try to edit...it looks weird. O_o So I can't find the place it goes in...[[User:Silver seren|Silver seren]] 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
== Paradigms vs theories ==
this information is relevant to the article but i feel that it could have more sections with details to it [[User:Abbadisaleh|Abbadisaleh]] ([[User talk:Abbadisaleh|talk]]) 23:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The following is copied from a discussion at [[Talk:Sociological paradigm]].
everything is relevant to the topic but there could be smoemore details and different sections.[[Special:Contributions/68.133.45.126|68.133.45.126]] ([[User talk:68.133.45.126|talk]]) 23:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I boldly redirected the [[sociological paradigms]] page to [[sociological theory]] (which was previously a short stub) and copied the content from this article there. Sociological theory is the more common term. --[[User:Reswik|Reswik]]
Line 86 ⟶ 98:
:::I think this distinction is important and this is what those of us that participated in the sociological category debate decided. (yes only two people were part of the discussion specifically, but many more read and felt no need to comment against the decisions reached.) If we can come up with a better way, then by all means! [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Perhaps '''Sociological Disciplines''' or '''Sociological Traditions''' would be better than sociological paradigms? [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 05:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
::::(Some of the following restates a few points you've made. Just looking more at this use of paradigm...) Well, it seems like this is a good place to talk about sociological paradigms vs. theory in terms of article titles. Perhaps it is a different issue to talk about category labels. It seems to me that in addition to "theory" that "framework" or "perspective" could be used as a term to refer to a wide range of theory/theories. I don't think paradigm works in that way. A paradigm is a broad topic that has some consensus, usually. There are narrow theories and wider general groups of theory - just like sets, small sets, big sets. Marxism is not a paradigm -- there are dialetical marxisms, economic determinist marxisms, cultural marxisms, feminist marxisms, etc. Same for feminism -- a diverse array of non-paradigmatic theories. So, I don't think we should use paradigm in this sense -- to group types of theory.
Line 96 ⟶ 108:
:::::So. For several reasons, I think a better solution here might be one of two options:
:::::First option: collapse sociological theory and sociological paradigms into the term social theory. All of this is social theory. Theories can be specific and general. I don't know if this is an ideal solution. It is simpler. I prefer the next option.
:::::Second option: replace "sociological paradigms" with "social theory" or "social theory (sociology)". Why? 1) In origins and often currently, sociological theory is a subset of, and relies very much on, a wide range of cross-/inter-disciplinary social theory. 2) Sociologists use interdisciplinary social theory extensively. 3) Sociological theory and social theory are sometimes conflated but social theory is the more encompassing term that includes marxism, feminism, etc. (These later should not be labelled as sociological paradigms, due to the meaning of "sociological" and "paradigms".)
::::::I'm keeping this discussion string intact: we do not have a debate -- I agree on this. I overstated -- it is a snap shot of my thinking at one point in considering this. -- Reswik
::::::With regard to this suggestion regarding social theory, I don't think that is appropriate at all. Social theory is very much an inter-disciplinary field I agree, it cross cultural theory, sociology, anthropology and many more. However, Sociology is quite distinct from social theory as a discipline, although there may be cross-over at a more detailed level among some of the particular theories. I don't think it would be appropriate to rename other discplines's pages (eg. anthropology, cultural theory, etc) as Social theory (anthropology), social theory (cultural theory) etc, and so I don't think merging sociological theories and social theories is appropriate. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 06:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 111 ⟶ 123:
::Is it ok to table the discussion of the relationship of theory/paradigm until the following is addressed? I'd like to work with applying the categories of sociological "term" and "theory" and figure out how to use the new category you proposed of "topic" relates to term. See my reply to your new string immediately below. Figuring out how to sort these more basic term/topic categories may somehow help shed light on the above. --[[User:Reswik|Reswik]] 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I think framework or perspective will work better than "general theory" and "specific theory". When I first learnt sociology, I was introduced to these broad ways of approaching sociology as sociology perpsectives, and that was actually my first choice (before paradigms was introduced). However when I started using this term in this way it was changed a number of times, because on Wikipedia this term was referring to [[Sociological perspective|THE Sociological perspective]], a usage that I have now come into contact with a number of times in textbooks, etc. However I would be happy to use "Sociological perspectives" instead of paradigms and just to have both definitions in the article as they are both valid usages.
:::In fact if we did this (ie. merged the current [[Sociological paradigm]] article with [[Sociological perspective]] and replaced all instances on "paradigm" with "perspective" in the various articles, then I guess I don't really mind if [[:Category:Sociological paradigms]] is just deleted, and all of "perspectives/frameworks" become sub-categories of [[:Category:Sociological theories]]. Although I think this would need to be explained in the lead paragraph for the category. Is there anyone who is particularly attached to the two separate categories? [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I prefer this last option of merging content you mention with subcats (general/specific) of a main theory cat. In a bit: What if we summarize the categorization and article options in a new comment section here and put a call for comment on the Wikiproject Soc page and realted theory article pages? But, before we do that: I wonder if perhaps there are any other revisions in main categories or new main categories to call for input about? (See my comment in the section below where I suggest a page of definitions of categories. Do we have one?) In the process of looking at defining categories, other issues about categories may emerge.
::::Perhaps it makes sense to look over the category system (and invite others to do so now). Then we could see if there are other issues to discuss (and hence choices to make) before making a call out on the particular choice above? It could be a good group project do some evaluation, refinement, explanation, and consensus building around the category structure -- at least as much as could be done practically -- over a few weeks or months at this time (with more than 2 participants hopefully :). Or, do you think that is not needed? -- [[User:Reswik|Reswik]] 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that reviews of things like the categories can always be useful, but if we put on hold other discussions/decisions or try and do the review all at once it just means that we are left with the status quo for a little bit longer. I would suggest putting notes at various places about the current topics and inviting people to review the other categories as well, if they wish. That means that we can kind of tackle the first issue we had and get it resolved before moving onto a fairly large scale review. I think alot of people probably wouldn't be interested in just going straight to an overall review because of the time, etc, required, when there are other pressing matters to attend to (such as what to do with the [[Sociological paradigm]] article).
In our little debate, we've gone all over the place, and I like you're idea of summarising things. I would suggest that we work out what the real issues are, what our agreed (or not) suggestions are and then present these in a separate thread below, inviting people to give their input. If people really want to read this all over-the-place discussion, then nothing is stopping them, but it is not really necessary to come to a decision. So I propose to use the draft as the start of a new (cleaner) discussion and, once we're happy with the draft, move it to its own new thread and link to it from [[Talk:Sociology]], [[Sociological paradigm]], [[Sociological perspective]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology]] and anywhere else you suggest.
I've made the following draft for the new thread from the debate above, but please correct and clarify where you see fit! [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
----
''(to be moved to own thread once agreed)''
'''The issue:'''
[[Sociological paradigm]] is not the most appropriate title for the content appearing on the page.
"Paradigm" is not a term that is accurate for a body of sociological thought. Some broad theories in sociology may be paradigmatic in scope/import and others not so. A paradigm is a broad topic that has some consensus, usually. Marxism is not a paradigm -- there are dialetical marxisms, economic determinist marxisms, cultural marxisms, feminist marxisms, etc. Same for feminism -- a diverse array of non-paradigmatic theories. So, I don't think we should use paradigm in this sense -- to group types of theory.
However a distinction between particular sociological theories and broad ways of approaching sociology is needed. Other possibilities instead of "paradigm" include sociological disciplines, sociological traditions, sociological perspectives.
*"Discilpines" - Too easily confused with disciplines in the sense of economics, history, sociology, etc.
*"Traditions" - Some of the things being classed here are relatively new and/or not well adopted in sociology
*"Perspectives" - When I first learnt sociology, I was introduced to these broad ways of approaching sociology as sociological perpsectives, and that was actually the term I used(before paradigms was introduced). However when I started using this term in this way it was changed a number of times, because on Wikipedia this term was referring to [[Sociological perspective|The Sociological Perspective]], a usage that I have now come into contact with a number of times in textbooks, etc. However I would be happy to use "Sociological perspectives" instead of paradigms and just to have both definitions in the article as they are both valid usages.
Also, a category currently exists called [[:Category:Sociological paradigms]]. If the term was changed in the article it would need to be changed in the category for consistency's sake.
*The overlap between [[:Category:Sociological theories]] and [[:Category:Sociological paradigms]] is so great that the distinction may not be necessary in terms of the categories. All article could be classified under "Sociological theories" with sub-categories for any paradigm/perspective, etc that has a number of articles related to it.
'''Proposed solution:'''
#Using "What links here" on [[Sociological paradigm]] change instances of the word paradigm to "Sociological perspective" as appropriate for each article
#Merge the content of [[Sociological paradigm]] with [[Sociological perspective]]
#Create a stub article on [[Sociological paradigm]] based on Reswick's points above.
#Reclassify all articles in [[:Category:Sociological paradigms]] to [[:Category:Sociological theories]]
#Create subcategories in [[:Category:Sociological theories]] for the perspectives and add category tag to articles
#Delete [[:Category:Sociological paradigms]]
::: I '''agree''', broadly speaking. Ultimately, wikipedia is very confused by all these similar and informal articles ([[social theory]]; [[sociological theory]]; [[social relations]]; [[sociological paradigm]], and so on), most of which only do a poor version of the same job as [[subfields of sociology]] and [[outline of sociology]], providing an amateurish and unreferenced summary of the entire discipline. The fact that everybody's efforts are being milked through multiple pages is clearly an issue. The fewer pages the better. I would support the deletion of ''either'' [[sociological paradigm]] or [[sociological theory]], with the merger of the best information from whichever page adequately incorporated. --[[User:Tomsega|Tomsega]] ([[User talk:Tomsega|talk]]) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
== Clean up still needed! ==
Line 121 ⟶ 171:
*For instance, any articles on organisations/groups that are non-profit or community groups or the like that don't actually do sociology could be reclassified under [[:Category:Non-profit organizations]].
*Create a [[:Category:Sociology topics]] and put in here all articles that relate to things that are studied by sociology but that do not necessarily contain any sociological theory in the article.
If people can think of other categories that could be created then please suggest them!
Also, this may be obvious, but if you find a more suitable category for an article in the main area of [[:Category:Sociology]] don't forget to remove the <nowiki>[[Category:Sociology]]</nowiki> tag. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'm working now on categorization of some sociology articles in the main sociology category space. Some of the largest sociology categories are sociological terms and theories. How do you think "Sociological topics" should be used in relation to "terms". FYI: As a sort of clean up excercise, I went through the [[list of sociology topics]] page (hundreds of items) a few months ago. There are a fair number of not specifically sociological topics there. I left most in the list. Another thing to consider here is how to reconcile the inclusion of terms in the list of topics page and in categories. Should the categorization work be considered primary in this -- with a note left on the list page (and wikiproject) about that? In other words, clean up categories -- then clean up the topic list page? --[[User:Reswik|Reswik]] 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::What I meant by '''Sociology topics''' was in relation to the way I thought the term was used in proposed new draft of [[Sociology]] i.e. topics that are studied in sociology, eg. family, social class, religion, etc, where the article itself in not actually about "Sociology of the family" but jsut about "family". Personally I don't think these pages should be in here at all, but there are heaps of them, eg. [[Aggression]], [[Altruism]], [[Attitude (psychology)]], [[Average Joe]], jsut to pick a few from "A". [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 03:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Thx for explaining. Is there something of an overlap then between meaning of "topic" and "term" (since terms can signify topics?). (It is ok for categories to overlap--unavoidable i guess.) I wonder: Would it be helpful to compile a list (at Wikiproject Sociology perhaps and linked on the main cate pages) of definitions of categories (with examples) might be a helpful guide to categorization. Would a diagram of hierarchical tree(s) be helpful? Perhaps we have more than one tree present in these categories: a subdiscipline tree; A theory tree (perspective-general/subdiscipline/very specific); a topic/subtopic/minor-topic tree, etc. (Or, is there a definition of the categories collected somewhere already?)
:::On specific articles: [[Aggression]] and [[Altruism]] have social sociological subsections and subsections from other fields. These are interdisciplinary articles. (Other examples are [[Education]] and [[Law]].) I wonder: Does it make sense to have a category "Interdisciplinary topics" (which could be very huge), so that we can keep track of the many articles (at least on major topics) where Sociological content is included? That is, some interdisciplinary articles will probably need reviews and revisions in an ongoing way. -- [[User:Reswik|Reswik]] 14:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Responding to each point in turn:
*The use of '''Sociolgoical terms''' is meant to imply terminology, that is terminology that is directly related to sociology. So "attitude" would not be considered a sociological term, it is not terminology, just a concept that is studied in sociology. Therefore I think that overlap would be rare, and, as you pointed out, it always going to be inevitable.
*I think descriptions and heirarchy would be awesome - the difficulty is where to put these things. We can't actually have an article on the Sociology Category.
**We could possibly create a sub-page of the WIkiProject Sociology page (or even this page) for this information and link to it from various places.
**I think a description of each category could go in the introduction to the main [[:Category:Sociology]] page if it could be very short. This would probably be a good idea in addition to a detailed page as suggested above.
*I don't think we need to distinguish between sociology topics and interdisicplinary topics. I think it could be made fairly obvious that topics studied in sociology are also studied in other disciplines.
**In terms of keeping track of sociology bits of these articles, one way to do this (depending on the amount of information available) is to create a new page called "Whatever (sociology)", transfer the information out of the original article onto this page, and then create a summary and main-article tag for the original article. The more concise "Whatever (sociology)" page can easily be kept track of, and the links back to the general articles are easily managed through the "What links here" link for the sociology article (as is the case with [[Education]] and [[Law]]). Where there is very little text, it probably just is even worth worrying about on a large scale, and just leaving it to the individuals who are particularly concerned with those specific topics to look up the existing articles. For instance, the articles you've mentioned, although they have the headings, they don't actually seem to have any particular sociological theories or discussions, so they are probably not worth worrying about.
**The other thing is, that if we get really good at classifying everything into one of the existing subcategories, maybe we can just have all the "topics" unclassified.
Sorry that's a bit all over the place. [[User:JenLouise|JenLouise]] 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
==References==
{{Reflist}}
== New discussion on subcategories - Feb 2012 ==
This matter has been raised on the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#ideas_for_diffusing_Category:Sociology.3F|Sociology project page]]. Having briefly read previous discussions above, I suppose one could create new subcategories for [[:Category:Methods in sociology]] to complement the existing [[:Category:Sociological_theories]]. There might also be a subcategory [[:Category:Applied sociology]], for something more specific than 'Sociology topics'. This subcategory could itself be subcategorized. Along with other existing subcategories, this might serve to weed out articles a bit more. Open to further discussion. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 04:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thinking out loud: [[:Category:Sociology in action]] for pages like: [[Bud_Billiken_Club]]... [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 04:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:Tentatively support, with the exception of sociology in action, which seems simply a different name for applied sociology. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk to me</span>]]</sub> 18:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:[[:Category:Methods in sociology]] should really replace [[:Category:Social sciences methodology]] directly in [[:Category:Sociology]] [[User:Brad7777|Brad7777]] ([[User talk:Brad7777|talk]]) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The 'Sociological terms' category page states "This category relates to sociological terms as opposed to sociological concepts." What is the reason that this subcategory cannot include both terms and concepts? Meclee (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC) [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
:Im not sure on the difference between the two, all terms represent concepts as far as i am aware [[User:Brad7777|Brad7777]] ([[User talk:Brad7777|talk]]) 16:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
:Created [[:Category:Methods in sociology]] and [[:Category:Applied sociology]]. Proposed mapping of 1st level subcategories can be found here: [[User:Meclee/proj4-sandbox]] [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 20:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
==Diffusion of Category - March 2012==
A diffusion of the Sociology category has been completed. In addition to listing several interdisciplinary categories (e.g., [[:Category:Aging]], [[:Category:Race]]) as subcategories, as well as sociology-related categories not previously listed as subcategories (e.g., [[:Category:Socialization]]), several new 1st level categories have been created, including:
*[[:Category:Deviance and social control]]
*[[:Category:Methods in sociology]]
*[[:Category:Social problems]]
*[[:Category:Social status]]
*[[:Category:Urbanization]]
In addition, several existing and new categories were added to various 1st level subcategories. To facilitate browsing of subcategories, the page [[Sociology category tree]] was created. This uses a MW tag, so should be self-updating. Any disputed category may be discussed in accordance with [[WP:CFD]]. [[User:Meclee|Meclee]] ([[User talk:Meclee|talk]]) 15:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
| |||