Talk:List of important publications in sociology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article List of important publications in sociology, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

I always heard Protestant work ethic. I noticed there was no Work ethic article here, protestant or otherwise, though there are many who have one. My $0.02 worth. Quinobi 13:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Standards in all the Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls articles

List of publications in biology was put up for deletion at AfD but survived the process as there was no consensus. However, as someone who has been concerned with this Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls project for some months now, I am concerned. There is indeed a case that the material here is not free of a POV. How do we determine importance? Earlier this year the participants on List of publications in chemistry debated this and decided on two matters. First, they tightened up the criteria for inclusion, in particular insisted that publications that were important as an introduction had to have had a wider importance such as altering the way all future text books were written or altered the way the subject was taught. Second, they decided that all new entries should be raised for debate over a 10 day period on the talk page to determine whether they should be kept or deleted. Most existing entries were debated and several were deleted. This has worked reasonably well although it would be better if more people had participated. It is clear enough that it is not, for these articles, sufficient to allow anyone to add entries, as only very obvious nonsense is likely to be deleted. Each entry needs the consideration of several editors. I urge all interested in this project to look at what the chemists here have done and consider whether something similar or even better can be used on all pages in the project. I am putting this paragraph on all the other talk pages of this project. --Bduke 08:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sociology books merge?

Perhaps this tiny stub should be merged and redirected here?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The criteria for entries

Please take a look at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science pearls#Header template to all project list pages on rewording the template that generates the header to this list of publications to make the criteria for entries to the list rather tighter and better reflecting the notability criteria of WP. The motivation is to better take into account comments that have been made when some of these lists have been proposed for deletion. --Bduke 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of important publications

Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is worthless

I thought about trying to clean this up, but in my opinion it's an unsalvageable mess. I'll nomininate this for deletion in a few days unless anyone strongly disagrees.--Nydas(Talk) 08:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you do, I suggest you look at the previous attempts to delete articles of this type. The philosophy list was deleted but that was rather different from the others. The biology list has been at AfD twice and not deleted. I think the computer science list was also at AfD and not deleted. All these lists are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. Also, please look at the chemistry list where we developed tighter criteria for inclusion, but the other lists have not followed that lead. There has been several discussions of inclusion criteria on the talk pages of the various lists and the Project. You might be able to improve this list. --Bduke 09:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The two AfDs for List of important publications in biology were far from clear-cut and consensus can change. I'm not convinced that 'developing tighter criteria' is really our job, it could be construed as original research.--Nydas(Talk) 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
To me it means ensuring that the individual entries are notable (important) and that the reasons for notability are sourced. I think that is following policy. The problem is that the choice of many entries by the editor that added them is OR. There is nothing to support their view of why it is there. In some cases, such as the philosophy list. there were no reasons for importance given let alone sources for it. --Bduke 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sociology of race and ethnicity

Glaring omission. Some sociologists which should have their major works listed in this article (in no particular order):

W.E.B. Dubois Gunnar Myrdal john powell Michael Omi Eduardo Bonilla-Silva Oliver Cox Cornell West Howard Winant Robert Park Henry Louis Gates Troy Duster Patricia Hill Collins Bob Blauner Aihwa Ong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.81.234 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concentration on essential publications

It seems to me that "importance" will blow up the list, so that it will create lots of debates on the "importance" of single books ending up with a useless list (see above). Better concentrating on essential founder publications the way e.g. the German wikipedia is trying to give (cf. {de:Portal:Soziologie/Liste bahnbrechender soziologischer Publikationen}). It will be helpful, the sociologists might agree on the titles more easily, and there is a good chance to accomplish it. -- €pa (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the critique, but I wonder if "founder" might be too stringent. For example, Parsons' _The Social Systems_ is very important, but came after his _The Structure of Social Action_. Is there another term to be used, such as "paradigm-building" or "paradigm-defining"? Bellagio99 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Might "pioneering publications" hit it? -- €pa (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, by itself. For example, Nan Lin's _Social Capital_ isn't pioneering, but its the currently definitive book on interpersonal social capital. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)