Talk:Pure sociology
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Failed AFD
[edit]See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure sociology. Johnleemk | Talk 15:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Airumel 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Lack of Citations
[edit]All of the information in wikipedia articles must be available on independent websites. Articles should be cited densely enough that for any claim, it is clear which website is the source. It is especially important that contributions which dispute some aspect of the article provide direct links to websites which support their claim. RedHouse18 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is a four-year-old concern that has long ago been addressed, with scores of citations. Airumel 16:19, 7 September 2011 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.154.86 (talk)
Problems with the Criticism Section
[edit]I made a significant contribution to the Criticism section months ago. Every thing I wrote was sourced. I provided one link which was the source of every argument, fact or quote. Since that time, one or more people have a) deleted sentences without justification b) violated NPOV and c) disputed or responded to what I contributed without providing a citation. I am going to put some sentences that were deleted back in and delete some of the unsourced content. RedHouse18 21:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again someone has attempted to delete content which is relevant and backed up by a citation. This should not happen without adaquate justification. Below is the information from the history available on the censor: 02:31, 13 July 2007 66.218.56.108 (Talk) (22,268 bytes) (→Criticism - removed irrelevant POV citation) (undo) RedHouse18 22:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is a four-year-old gripe by an idealogue who ACKNOWLEDGES that everything added came from a single source (likely written by RedHouse himself). The only other edits in this (POV) direction came from MythBusterz, an ideological user whose own page was removed months ago as an attack page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Mythbusterz). Airumel 17:22, 7 September 2011 (PST)
Problems with the Criticism Section
[edit]Is this entry a put-on? It is the most vapid entry that I have ever seen on this website. Even by the very low standards of sociology articles, this is ridiculous. The only evidence that there is something substantial going on here is the reference to a "dispute", which implies that at least three people think that there is some substance to this topic. The concept of a sociological discipline without any interest in social actors / people is hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is decently sourced and failed an AfD. You can try to re-list it if you want, but the same thing will happen. There are lots of seemingly-absurd sub-disciplines which many academics believe. Stu (aeiou) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph of this section is clearly not NPOV and appears to have been written by one of Black's disciples/students, I'm guessing (from the history) either Ellis Godard or Bradley Campbell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.194.157 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- A large number of users have made edits, including Ellis, Bradley, and others. The only sense in which the page isn't NPOV, is that it's objected to by an idealogue who "when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough." (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F) Dozens of scholars participate in Pure Sociology, and many more make use of this page. The entry should not continue to be tied up by years-old gripes from a single ideologue, whose account no longer exists, having been removed as an "attack page". Airumel, 17:26 7 September 2011 (PST)
- The second paragraph in the criticism section seems to be some random person's opinion and isn't sourced at all. This should be sourced and the response to Black's critic (Douglas Marshall) should be credited to someone specific. Or it should be deleted.
Further reading
[edit]This list is far too long. Can someone with knowledge of the subject trim it down so that it is useful? Maybe 10 to 15 key or canonical works? Stu (aeiou) 14:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Outlinks
[edit]I'm pretty sure there are not supposed to be so many outlinks from this page. Going to check the rules on that, and if indeed it fails, delete them all.Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)