Talk:History of sociology

message: An argument on this page is that Comte thought human society could be studied as if it is no different from the rest of the natural world. It seems to me that this is plainly untrue because Comte's social/historical theory is centred on the three stages of human thought: theological, philosophical and scientific. Unless the rest of the natural world thinks in these three stage, Comte has clearly distinguished human society from the rest of nature. I think the problem is that (at this point) the page is trying to contrast positivism with understanding sociology. But to do so, it misrepresents the French positivists of the 19th century. Studymore 21:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he might have distinguished it, but nonetheless the principles of sociological positivism, a sociological paradigm he founded are based on the assumption that there is not much difference between natural and social sciences - or at least, this is how I understand it. Please, be bold, cite your sources and improve the Comte-related content.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comte?

message: Theres almost nothing mentioning the different theories, or even linking to a list of the different Sociological Theories that exist.
:Few are mentioned. But this is a small history of... article, and certainly needs expantion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, you made that comment two years ago. Not much has happened. We need to expand this article. Masterpiece2000  (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories? 

message: This passage is all questionable because the first sentence is patently ridiculous—Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs) .
Ibn Khaldun (732-808) recognized as the founder of scientific Sociology and historiography, 
"emphasized the necessity of subjecting both social and historical phenomena to scientific and objective analysis. He noted that those phenomena were not the outcome of chance, but were controlled by laws of their own, laws that had to be discoveblue and applied in the study of society, civilization and history. He remarked that historians have committed errors in their study of historical events, due to three major factors: (l) Their ignorance of the natures of civilization and people, (2) their bias and prejudice, and (3) their blind acceptance of reports given by others."(Zahoor 1996) For more information on Khaldun and his sources see http://sociology.rationalreality.com
:Ibn Khaldun is not considered as the father of Sociology. I have removed that line. Masterpiece2000  (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed passage

message: Rubbish metaphor, whiggish history - should be changed to the first systematic social thinker. As a father, he requires some sons and then a timeline to 18th century sociolgists who labelled themselves as such, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_genealogy Robat (talk) Robat
:Ibn Khaldun is not considered as the father of sociology. The sources are not reliable. Masterpiece2000  (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Auguste Comte, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are considered as the founding fathers of sociology. I will make necessary changes. Masterpiece2000  (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on what source  you read. Recently I was browsing through Jerzy Szacki's History of sociological thought (in Polish) and he starts with Greek philosophers... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's interesting! Masterpiece2000  (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khaldun: Father of sociology? 

message: There has been historical opposition to sociology in early 20th century faculties, when it was said that the discipline  was mere ideology. I'm thinking of a possible article title such as criticism of sociology or controversies in sociology. ADM (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would constitute original research and wouldn't be appropriate for wikipedia. To be fair, most of the best critiques of social science come from within the social sciences, from Simmel to Weber to Foucault. I think what you're actually after is the philosophy of social science article, which indeed needs work! --Tomsega (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've been through the article and added dates (birth-death) to each name mentioned. I think it benefits a history of article immensely to have these present, so with each new name added, lets please have dates added too. Yep, that's about it. ;) --Tomsega (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Following on from the discussion on the main sociology page, here is a list of unmentioned theorists who might be integrated and referenced (rather than simply listed) in to this page:
Classical figures: Ibn Khalduun, Friedrich Engels, Herbert Spencer, 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: 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, 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) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing theorists: A To Do List 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of sociology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120902023351/http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm to http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of sociology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402111425/http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/intl_0509.html to http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/intl_0509.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :History of sociology's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "IW":
From World-system: Immanuel Wallerstein, (2004), WORLD-SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, in World System History , [Ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford ,UK
From World-systems theory: Immanuel Wallerstein, (2004), "World-systems Analysis." In World System History, ed. George Modelski, in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK
Reference named "TB":
From World-system: Thomas Barfield, The dictionary of anthropology, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, , is" hyphen&f=false Google Print, p.498-499
From World-systems theory: Thomas Barfield, The dictionary of anthropology, Wiley-Blackwell, 1997, , Google Print, p.498-499
Reference named "glob":
From Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: 
From World-systems theory: Frank Lechner, Globalization theories: World-System Theory, 2001
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:History of sociology]] 

message: I've noticed that this page makes no mention of Jane Addams, Isabel Eaton, or any of the women who undertook sociological study at Hull House. I find this unacceptable given Wikipedia's commitment to overcome its documented systemic gender bias. Addams and other women's erasure from the history of American sociology is a clear instance of gender bias (see Deegan's 'Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School,' particularly pp. 7-15 to start, though the whole book makes the case fully). Women were denied academic positions at universities during this period, and so their contributions to empirical sociology occurred in non-university institutions like Hull House. This work was sometimes groundbreaking, most notably in the case of 'Hull House Maps and Papers' which was the first use of empirical techniques like mapping, statistics, and surveying in a published American work. Such women's work was buried in the early years of Chicago Sociology as a result of the pressures of sociology to establish itself as a professional discipline in American institutions, which involved the strategy of distancing itself from the 'radical' work of settlement houses (associations which were formerly coveted). I strongly urge the inclusion of Addams and Hull-House women on this page. I am happy to write a paragraph on this, but will wait to discuss this further on the talk page first. Parysa Clare (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Bias 

message: Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Draft:Establishment of Sociology (Discipline) in France]]