Talk:Economic sociology

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. It does not fit here and should, in my opinion, be moved/ removed. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting section: Economic sociology of US immigration

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expert input 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The modern capitalisation of the interpersonal relations 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-promotion and undisclosed COI editing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion about recent edits 

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