Talk:Economic sociology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 28 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Reem kahsay (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JordanMay44.

Splitting section: Economic sociology of US immigration

It seems like a no-brainer to me that the section Economic sociology of US immigration should be split off, either into its own page or added to Immigration to the United States or another similar page. CircleAdrian (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It does not fit here and should, in my opinion, be moved/ removed. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Expert input

Someone with more time than me needs to provide detail about this field. The biggest concepts of contemporary economic sociology such as brokerage, strength of weak ties, structural holes, influentials, isomorphism, etc., are not defined anywhere on wikipedia. They all deserve their own pages with sections describing them here. There are excellent summary articles on the field out there--someone just needs to sit down to translate them here (I will try to do this in the summer, if no one beats me to it first.)DarwinPeacock (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The modern capitalisation of the interpersonal relations

I have posted a suggestion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#The_modern_capitalisation_of_the_interpersonal_relations which could be of relevance for the Economic sociology section... 87.51.147.41 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-promotion and undisclosed COI editing

Content should be based on independent reliable sources, phrased in neutral language, and should not be added by single-purpose editors who are probably closely connected to the organization in question. In recent months there have been multiple attempts to spam as many mentions and self-published articles of the ES/PE as possible. If this is a relevant academic association, it should be possible to provide independent sources to show this relevance. And it shouldn't be necessary to spam to increase the association's online presence in direct violation of WP:PROMO, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"conceptual endeavor to contextualize economic actions, processes and structures in the wider societal context". Of course the definition could probably be expanded a bit. But encyclopedic definitions should define topics in a precise, uninvolved and succinct manner, and not obfuscate simple facts with hollow insubstantial buzzwords. Reverted this part, together with recurring self-promotion in this article. GermanJoe (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: There have been some additional messages relevant to this discussion at User talk:77.139.7.109. I have asked the IP user to continue the discussion here on this article talkpage (to allow other editors to follow and join the debate), and to provide independent sources for their claims of significance. I have also notified Wikiproject:Sociology and WikiProject:Economics, and asked for uninvolved additional opinions. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about recent edits

Hello, We are not sure what do you mean by "editing pattern", since we are new in Wikipedia. We updated the key academic organizations in Economic Sociology around the world that are broadly known and influence the field: ASA, ISA, ES/PE, SASE, ESA, FAS. We checked the membership and details on every association on their official websites and other sources. It's an important information, because the field has enormously evolved but it absolutely has no information and representation in Wikipedia. Therefore we added all this new information to this entry. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.103.70 (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you don't mind, that I moved your message in a separate section for easier discussion. It was somewhat hidden in a message about a different topic. But thank you for posting here to discuss this issue. As already explained on User talk:77.139.7.109, please read Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guideline at WP:COI and disclose any connection to the topic you might have. Secondly, content on Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources (WP:RS). Please provide such sources, which cover these associations and personal websites as significant research groups in the field. Thirdly, phrase content in a neutral encyclopedic tone, without subjective praise or exaggerating claims (WP:NPOV). Please see the blue-linked guidelines for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello, we are group of sociologists that trying to improve the page with an updated information. Which "independent reliable sources" could one present?.. There is no articles on Economic sociology in New York Times of Fox News. We presented the original sources about 5-6 key associations in the filed: ASA, ISA, ES/PE, SASE, ESA, FAS. This lack of understanding of and meaningless bureaucratization reaffirm the well-known degradation of Wikipedia. Well, this is the choice you make to turn down academics and scholars willing to contribute. Well, this is your choice to keep Wikipedia outdated and incorrect. No wonder Wikipedia loses visitors and donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.134.50 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is doing fine, thank you. Instead of trying to promote your organizations, please consider editing actual content about economic sociology etc. - you'll find people look more friendly at those trying to add knowledge, instead of promoting their pet projects. Now, (pinging User:GermanJoe, can't ping the anons...), I've come here following the RfC from WikiProject Sociology. I've reviewed [1]:

First paragraph: 'The gradual evolution...' was uncited.

Second paragaph: 'The global academic...' - the society got coverage in [2], that's reliable enough. The paragraph could be shrtened (it's on Facebook/etc., who cares, everyone is..), and the second sentence 'relevant source...' is POV. But noting such society was established should be fine.

Third paragraph: 'Economic Sociology thematic network (RT12) at the the French Association of Sociology ' - seems like a regional chapter, and while ASA is big, outside English-speaking countries scholarship is... well, let's just say I don't see why it would be significant to list which national sociological associations have a chapter on economic sociology. Primary sources used, no indication this organization was noticed by anyone outside it.

Fourth paragraph: 'Economic Sociology research network ' - ditto, not seeing what makes this worth a mention. Primary sources used, no indication this organization was noticed by anyone outside it.

Bottom line: I support recreation of the shortened version of the second paragraph on'Economic Sociology and Political Economy (ES/PE)'. Other content is of little value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, User:Piotrus. However regarding the 2nd paragraph: the website in question is little more than a personal blog, and all claims about its importance and membership numbers are solely based on the founder's say-so (I have found exactly zero independent sources covering this project in their own words from an uninvolved PoV). To be clear: I am not totally opposed to a brief and neutral mention, if an independent source shows the site's relevance. But an interview in an internal newsletter simply parroting the founder's statements is not sufficient. Interview-based articles without additional third-party details can only verify the interviewee's own statements and personal opinion. They can't be used to verify factual information, especially not disputed and/or self-promotional details. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: I'd say that the interview is not enough to support existence of this topic as a stand-alone article (i.e. it is not sufficient for us to have an article about that organization). But a mention in the newsletter of the worlds' de facto biggest and most important (or one of two, ISA being the second one that matters somewhat) sociological association is IMHO enough for it to get a mention here. Short one, but if ASA newsletter thinks it deserves a mention, I think we can do the same. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Seems like we have slightly differing views on this specific source and its usability, but no problem. Feel free to add something short and neutral, if you believe it is relevant enough and will improve the article. I would oppose mentioning the number of members though, as this number is likely misrepresented and inflated by the founder (simply "liking" a channel on social media or joining a mailing list does not establish an academic community) - unless the number can be independently verified and the type of "membership" is clarified with additional context. GermanJoe (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Here's my attempt to salvage a neutral statement from the prior attempt at advertising: [3]. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Seems to be a reasonable compromise, thanks again for your help with this dispute. GermanJoe (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! I added a peer review of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanMay44 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)