Talk:List of sociologists

message: Hi, I restructured that list, hope that there will be some additions (for example, their is no female sociologist on the list at the moment!, Chicago school is missing a bit, what about Wallerstein, ...). Also I hope my mixing of formal sociologists and not-sociolgists with great influence is okay (I did that because it's often difficult to decide in which category a person falls). The only problematic cases I see are Freud und Saussure. It would be cool if people would add their famous sociologists onto the list, even if there is no article at the moment, so that this list can act also as an demand-page for articles about sociologists. -- till we *) 21:06 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
hi, i notice, that a large segment of sociologists are missing from asian and african countries. these sociologists and in particular have contributed lot for the development of sociology at large. may be this would help in understanding the development of sociology in general.
:Maybe it shows mainly the western-bias of Wikipedia and/or sociology. I must admit that I as a sociologist only know a very limited number of Asian and African sociologists and don't feel able to decide if they are important and influential or not. So feel free to add to the list! (And to the according entries) -- till we *) 12:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the change between F. Tönnies and M. Weber as German founders of sociology, in the end naming both only as German sociologists, because I don't think this list is the right place to discuss wheter one or the other was the real founder of sociology in Germany. -- till we *) 10:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  New eligibility section lower down page. I think we should have the discretion to include those who would likely appear in an academic list of sociologists. The likes of Freud, Wittengstein and Saussure are influential but not appropriate; if everyone 'influential' were included we'd need just about every thinker since Plato. --86.139.44.48 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

message: I've added Fernando Henrique Cardoso to the list of noted sociologists. I hope you don't mind. 161.24.19.82 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardoso

message: please check http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/intro_popper/intro_popper.html
i don't have enough time to do it myself
tyler nelson 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Popper 

message: was just added with the description "deepest think that ever walked the earth" (or something like that). Obviously I removed that description, but he is a sociologist (http://artsci.usfca.edu/servlet/ShowEmployee?empID=563). I don't know if he's notable enough to be included, if someone does then please advise. At the moment I've left him in. --User24 18:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dale Rose 

message: Is he notable enough? I'm a big fan, so I may not be objective here. Deepsoulstarfish 03:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas J Scheff 

message: There are names just added irregularly, without any Wiki links, on the wrong places, alphabetically, &c. Who is in charge here? Greetings -- €pa 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd contributions 

message: To study Sociology at this era is a waste of time and brain. This is happening globaly. People with pure Sociology tend to struggle to get job in most cases, (except for being a lecture).
I don't think I understand what this comment is based on.  Is this just random opinion or is there some evidence supporting the notion that studying sociology is "a waste of time and brain"?Canticle 08:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Studing sociology is "a waste of time and brain"? That's nonsense. People are studing sociology all over the World. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are three main reasons for disrespect toward sociology as far as I can see: (1) Most people simply don't know what sociology is, (2) pre-university level courses (school curricula) milk the subject down and emphasise topics such as 'the family' to such an extent that it becomes some sort of 'life skills' lesson taught by unqualified teachers, and (3) By its very remit sociology is almost inherently left-wing, particularly by American standards of what constitutes left and right (even if the subject did begin with comparitively conservative functionalist theory). To me it seems quite obvious that many of the most important thinkers of the last century have, in fact, been sociologists. Anybody studying humanities, such as art history or literary studies, or other social sciences and psychology, should realise the significance of the discipline. People studying engineering or maths are likely to have no clue to the same extent they won't know much about politics or philosophy in general. --Tomsega (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Sociology's Reputation is extremely fading? 

message: I think only those sociologist are notable should be included in this list. All the red links should be deleted. I would like to know what other users think about it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red links might be helpful, if a serious sociologist is still missing and ought to have a contribution. -- €pa (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: *NOTE: Could those adding or removing theorists describe the changes as they post!*
There are no doubt a great many sociological thinkers - individuals who produced sociological work - who in fact did not describe themselves as "sociologists" per se, either due to historical circumstance (Marx the most notable example) or due to a preference towards closely-related spin-off disciplines (cultural studies, feminist theory, critical theory, etc etc). Appropriate discretion is therefore necessary.
I do not believe there is any reason why the likes of Freud and Wittgenstein should be in a list of 'sociologists', however much their work affected social science. They are not even social scientists. If everybody who has ever influenced sociology were to be added, the list would no doubt consist of every political theorist and philosopher since Aristotle - in fact we'd have identical lists for all these disciplines within the common stock of Western civilisation! --Tomsega (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is inconsistent. First you claim that Marx should be included because he produced sociological work (actually, he described his work as political economy, and indeed had a pretty low opinion of sociology as postulated by his contemporary Comte). Then you say other people in very similar situations should not be excluded. If we were to use this logic, Ibn Khaldoun would not be on the list, as he never described his work as "sociology". Just some food for thought.  Ladril (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this would imply deleting the early American practitioners of the discipline, such as William James and Mead (they thought of themselves more as philosophers or psychologists than as philosophers). I don't mean to offend but I hope I make a point. Ladril (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't contradicting myself in adding that Marx never described himself as a sociologist; I was acknowledging that point and promoting appropriate discretion. Up until about the mid 19th century most disciplines we recognise now fell under the broad category of 'philosophy', the major enlightenment figures being polymaths. Marx may not have described himself as a sociologist but he, very much like Comte and Durkheim, very literally attempted to establish a science of society, and this is what makes him indespensible to the discipline and unique amongst political philosophers. We can be as liberal as regarding 'social scientist', 'social theorist' and 'sociologist' as synonymous terms. It would ridicule both the discipline and the article, however, to include the likes of Freud and Wittgenstein. They are influential, yes - I produced essays on both as a part of my sociology degree - but I still wouldn't describe them as sociologists, neither would you find them in an academic fully published 'list of sociologists', even if they might appear in the index of a book on sociology (or economics or politics or art history or anthropology or media studies...) --Tomsega (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue that is still up is that sociology has been closely bound with so many disciplines even after its modern inception in the nineteenth century (and according to Giddens, it is likely to get closer to philosophy in the near future). As a result, it's difficult to draw a fair exclusionist line that does not leave out important contributors to sociological thought. Moreover, the "This article provides a list of sociologists and major contributors to sociology (even if they did not primarily work as sociologists)" line at the top of the article is up there for a reason, and you are expected to generate a consensus on talk pages before making drastic changes to articles. I don't want to start a edit war, but this will most likely require more discussion. Ladril (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility as 'Sociologists' 

message: Don't you all think we should have Karl Marx on the front pictures over say Thorstein Veblen?
:Agree that Marx is much more influential to sociology than Veblen. If the latter is being included to have some American representation in the pictures I think a figure like Mead would be a much better choice. Ladril (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Pictures 

message: This is supposed to be an all-inclusive list of sociologists, not a list focusing on American and core European country sociologists. I've noticed entries for many notable Spanish and Latin American sociologists have been removed, and am readding them. Please do not remove until a talk page consensus is reached. Ladril (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusivity - please avoid systemic bias