Talk:Economics of religion/Archive 1

message: Who is responsible for removing defunct tags, like the source tag on this article?  Second, the formatting of the current references seems off, I think there are explanations in the manual of style, or perhaps we should look at examples, like the Max Weber bio article, which was featured before.  --Htw3 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Great progress everyone!  This entry is really coming along.  The section on the development of the theory needs work, as does the section on debates.  Also there needs to be a section on current research (not all the current work is embroiled in debate with people outside the research tradition, though much is).   I know that Dr. Paul Froese at Baylor University has done a bunch of work related to religion and atheism, especially documenting changes in the former soviet union. --Htw3 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great progress

message: Is this a supply side form of theory? How does it explain the difference in religiosity in western Europe and the USA when both have had religious freedom for a long time? Andries (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: supply side form of theory?

message: Is this article an ongoing assignment, or is it open to editing by anyone?--Editor2020 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is open to anyone to edit.  It is no longer the subject of an assignment.   Please feel free to make it better.  I will try to make some substantive improvements also, but can only do so as my other time demands allow.  --Htw3 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an ongoing assignment? 

message: *H. Richard Niebuhr: In his 1929 publication, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Niebuhr discusses the competing denominations of ChristianityNiebuhr, H. Richard (1929). The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Henry Holt and Company,Inc.. Niebuhr  states that economic factors are the primary cause of divisions of the churchNiebuhr, H. Richard (1929). The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Henry Holt and Company,Inc.. Also, Niebuhr suggests that economic stratification is responsible for maintaining divisions in the church that were caused by other factorsNiebuhr, H. Richard (1929). The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Henry Holt and Company,Inc..
:So, this is a great paragraph, but it doesn't at all deal with the topic of the theory of religious economy.  In grossly oversimplified terms, ToRE advocates say religion is an exchange of goods between men and gods--worship for eternal life, for instance.  Niebuhr, on the other hand, and again grossly oversimplified, said that rich folk don't like to go to church with poor folk.  I'm sure this paragraph can find an appropriate home here in Wikipedia somewhere, but this article really isn't the place for it, despite the similarities of terms used. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Development/Research (removed from article)

message: Can you please seperate the books and papers that have been used for the article from the further reading section? The first should go into a notes/references section. The section further reading should only contain works that have not been cited. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.Andries (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading versus notes/references

message: Hi, and thanks to all of you who are learning to edit Wikipedia by expanding this article.  Since Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, please understand that the edits that I and others make have the goal of IMPROVING your contributions.  A couple of quick points:
* Additions to the article are not signed, but contributions to the talk pages (i.e., here) are.
* References to the same souce (e.g., Stark's Sociology book) can be combined, rather than repeated. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome, new editors!

message: I have several problems with the sections entitled "growth of strict religions" and "Strict Regulations to enforce Strong Ties".
*I perceive "Strict" to be pejorative.  In all of Stark's writings with which I'm familiar, he uses the terms "church" and "sect" to differentiate between what he characterizes religious movements that maintain low and high tension, respectively, with their societies.  Is there a good reason to use "strict" instead of calling out tension between religious movement and society?
*Overall, the use of cult, church, and sect in these sections seems confused and imprecise.
*Is there a good reason to include questions in the text?  I'm inclined to rephrase them as statements.
*Last I heard, it was free rider problem not free loader...
*The starting point of the second quote (which ends with "... comply earnestly.") is not indicated.
*... and there's a few other grammatical errors, tenses and whatnot.
Please feel free to alter your text to make it more clear.  I could (and might) fix some or all of these, but I'd rather give the right of first refusal to the editor who included the section. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you suggest as an alternative term for "strict"? The term is  used in at least one cited source i.e. Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Why Strict Churches are Strong” American Journal of Sociology. March, 1994. Issue 5. (1180-1211) Andries (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The boundaries between sect and churches are clear only rarely. I will remove the factual accuracy warning because I do not see any in the article or a complaint about it on the talk page. Andries (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Strictness and such

message: Researchers in the field of religion-based economy and economy-based religion have found insight in the 1985 paper Market Economy and Ethics by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who clearly points out the links between trust-based economies and faith-based morality. Along with many Christian theologians, he claims that trust is in fact a special kind of faith, in close relation with love and hope. It has been said in press articles that Ratzinger was the first to predict the current economic crisis, and therefore this seems quite relevant to the topic. ADM (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cardinal Ratzinger's 1985 paper

message: Feel free to re-add statements to this article or another article in Wikipedia from this removed section that I removed after organizing it per subject. The organization in Wikipedia should be organized per subject, not per research report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_religious_economy&diff=323531978&oldid=323529688
Andries (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added all that I thought was interesting and informative enough i.e. only the contents of one subsection of the section that I had removed. Andries (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of complete section

message: Proposal (per previous section): (B1) Merge Economics of religion (ER) into Theory of religious economy (TRE) & title change of Theory of religious economy to Economics of religion.
Rationale: Practicality, generality, and common usage. For ease of reference: 
1T. The TRE article has been around been around since 18 October 2007 compared to 30 December 2009 for ER. The many past editors of TRE might understandably wish to preserve their part in TRE article history, compared to the few at ER. Not a problem if the latter agrees to (B1). 
2T. ER is the more general term including not only "theory" but, by common usage, testing of the theory and empirical uses of the theory.  ER is the more inclusive term.  In practice, a search of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Theory+of+religious+economy%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000001&as_sdtp=on reveals that most uses of 'TRE' are not purely theoretical but theory plus empirical application.  It's fine to mention "religious economy" in ER (as about 30 percent of scholarly articles on ER do), but then why not embed 'religious economy' in the broader term (ER)?  Not including that broader usage in the article title is misleading. 
3T.  TRE has small scholarly usage compared to ER: about  26 Google hits for TRE compared to about 1460 for ER. Why not use the much more commonly attested term in the title? 
A merge plus title change will not happen without acceptance.  I would hope that there would be enough support, or at least non-opposition for this to happen.  In any merger+title change, acknowledgment should be made of the contributions by social scientists outside of economics (most prominently from sociology.  
I'd like to welcome further comment, say in the next week, followed by action one way or the other.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Done with the typical WP-efficient wizardry  of User:Anthony Appleyard, merger extraordinaire.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Merge 'Economics of religion' into 'Theory of religious economy' & change title to 'Economics of religion'

message: ...
I have another proposal now, but I'd like to confirm first that it is technically feasible. The proposal is to merge article B into artlcle A at the same time as changing the title of A to B  (or shortly thereafter).  Assuming that there was such a merger+title change, could the longer history of A  then be preserved in the history of the article? (I understand that the history B would be destroyed in the merger.)
A is Theory of religious economy (started 18 October 2007). B is Economics of religion (started 30 December 2009).  
* Thank you for your assistance.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is merging  article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible? 

message:   
==== Not CSD worthy, but messy ====
This article seems messy, and should be organized.  Cheers, --Stevedietrich (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye.  Still, onward & upward, with the help of others one hopes. And may it at least whet the appetite for some of the great sources I drew on (Smith, Iannaccone, et al.).   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Thx for comment.  Well, not everyone has access to that one or two perfect citations per subject. Many of the citations are illustrative, not something to be taken as definitive.  If this were a fully fleshed out article many of the citations might be weaved into a narrative. In the absence of that, some readers might like more or less.  At least those who would like less can just stop at the first reference. Those who really want to get into a subject might prefer to have the choice.  Still, I'll take another look at pruning. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thomas, the article is very well cited almost to its fault. If you are familiar with the topic yourself and have access to all these citations might I suggest expanding the article yourself, perhaps you can mention different sources for the definitions separately in the article, at this point the reference section is twice as long as the article itself. One rarely comes across articles with as many citations mostly because some over-zealous editor or administrator will trim them down to conform to guidelines, My reason for leaving the message above was only hoping that someone familiar with the topic can trim or expand it rather than someone who might know little or nothing about the topic just policies and guidelines. Anyway, thanks for your reply and I hope you understand my intention here.--Theo10011 (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did follow the suggestion of the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill for combining each batch of citations into a single footnote. This has the added advantage of allowing the reader to demarcate each batch more readily, besides reducing the number of footnotes.  Each batch would allow an energetic editor to expand the article carefully using influential sources.  Because most of the citations have links, it also allows the interested reader to follow topic threads to investigate those subjects in more detail.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of 'Talk:Economics of religion:Economics of religion'

message: This article seems messy, and should be organized.  Cheers, --Stevedietrich (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye.  Still, onward & upward, with the help of others one hopes. And may it at least whet the appetite for some of the great sources I drew on (Smith, Iannaccone, et al.).   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not CSD worthy, but messy 

message: There are way too many citations and references on the page, far more than needed. any statement that would be enough with a single citation has 3-4 or sometimes 7 citations(71 total at the time of this post), the reference section is larger than the article section, can someone please look into the citations and refine them to one or two appropriate ones, I am not familiar enough with the topic to judge. Thanks --Theo10011 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for comment.  Well, not everyone has access to that one or two perfect citations per subject. Many of the citations are illustrative, not something to be taken as definitive.  If this were a fully fleshed out article many of the citations might be weaved into a narrative. In the absence of that, some readers might like more or less.  At least those who would like less can just stop at the first reference. Those who really want to get into a subject might prefer to have the choice.  Still, I'll take another look at pruning. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Thomas, the article is very well cited almost to its fault. If you are familiar with the topic yourself and have access to all these citations might I suggest expanding the article yourself, perhaps you can mention different sources for the definitions separately in the article, at this point the reference section is twice as long as the article itself. One rarely comes across articles with as many citations mostly because some over-zealous editor or administrator will trim them down to conform to guidelines, My reason for leaving the message above was only hoping that someone familiar with the topic can trim or expand it rather than someone who might know little or nothing about the topic just policies and guidelines. Anyway, thanks for your reply and I hope you understand my intention here.--Theo10011 (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did follow the suggestion of the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill for combining each batch of citations into a single footnote. This has the added advantage of allowing the reader to demarcate each batch more readily, besides reducing the number of footnotes.  Each batch would allow an energetic editor to expand the article carefully using influential sources.  Because most of the citations have links, it also allows the interested reader to follow topic threads to investigate those subjects in more detail.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Overkill 

message: Per the above, nothing recent has been added to earlier sections since July when the article merger and name change were completed. This has the advantage of focusing attention on issues going forward. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. This article still needs plenty of work, so I think WP:Bold is in order however you see fit. Ocaasi (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to archive all sections up to "Ways to improve article" in a week