Talk:Phenomenology (sociology)

message: Hi, I edited the page to better reflect the manual of style of Wikipedia (MOS). In this case the capitalisation of the section headings. I also used the section Introduction as the lead section. The latter is a case of interpetation, and the using the indtroduction as a lead section is not always a good idea. In this case, I do believe you are right, and it isn't the best choise. The capitalisation of the section headers however is clearer in the MOS. It roughly says not to use capitals, execpt for proper nouns, and the start of a new sentense. If you have a good motivation not to follow the MOS here, that's fine, but could you indicate those reasons? Martijn Hoekstra 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you still find some more info on the references for me. Just a year and a writer is too little for me to find them back. If you can add a COI, ISBN or title of the work, any will do, I can find the rest, and make them into the format I used earlier. Martijn Hoekstra 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: I just tagged this article as jargon, but it has numerous problems. These seem to stem from the fact that the article has been chiefly authored by one editor, and one not familiar with WP style. Aside from numerous errors in spelling and formatting, I would say that this article is all but inaccessible to someone outside the field, and from what I can gather, proposes points which are easily debatable among those knowledgeable about phenomenological sociology. Is there anyone who can improve this without starting from scratch?
Also, I remind you, that you cannot simply claim an article as yours and "finish" it at some point.
Ipsenaut (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After all these years, the article is still a mess to read and impossible to understand. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Readability 

message: Consensus states this article is in bad shape in two ways: (1) jargon and unclear speech make it challenging for readers who want an accessible overview of the subject (BeenAroundAWhile 2021 et al.) and (2) most of these paragraphs are structured awkwardly and makes it difficult to understand the subject matter ("Readability"). But I would like to add a third way: (3) there is outstanding omissions of important ideas (such as a clear definition of "general thesis of the natural attitude" which makes Husserl's ideas hard to grasp when comparing them to Schütz. 
I would like to point out that Phenomenology (in all contexts) is considered a challenging and enigmatic field because students, philosophical hobbyists, and some researchers (let's be honest, PHL Professors are not always good at explaining phenomenology) begin reading about it without knowing that phenomenology is NOT a direct study of a subject like ontology or physics. It is a method which reveals the belief we have in the objective nature in our perceptions of the world (this belief is called the "Natural Attitude") and then teaches us to suspend this Attitude ("phenomenological reduction" AKA "epoché") in order to reconsider the nature of the phenomena we experience in consciousness. Phenomenology can be applied to physical sciences, psychology, sociology, economics, and any other fields which assume a Natural Attitude which in most contexts goes unquestioned.
It is a hard subject but an important one: this page had over 4k views in the past month and I believe some of them walked away feeling discouraged.
I would boldly like to substantially revise the article considering the consensus, my third (3) added point, and the ideas stated. I am aiming for clarity without losing any rigor: this is a hard subject no matter how clear you can get!!!!
I am submitting substantial revisions today but I have not revised the "Stock of Knowledge" subheading nor the "Reduction" heading. Please give me a while to get to those.
Non-pegasus (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul Project 

message: * What is Phenomenology?:
:>Davis Woodruff Smith, "Phenomenology", Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy".  Free/Website.
* Introduction for Sociologists:
:Maurice Natanson, Edmund Husserl: Philosopher of Infinite Tasks, Northwestern UP.  1974.  Paperback.
* Nuts and Bolts of Phenomenological Method:
:>Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology, Cambridge UP. 2000.  Paperback.
:>R.M. Zaner, "Editorial Introduction", ppgs. xv-xxxv, in, The Collected Works of Aron Gurwitsch, V.III, Springer.  2010.
* Phenomenological Sociology:
:>Michael D. Barber, "Alfred Schutz", Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Free/Website.
:>Alfred Schutz, The Phenomenology of the Social World, Northwestern UP.  1967.  Paperwork.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.45 (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add this (IMO pretty good to excellent) 'Bibliography' to the article itself. MaynardClark (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography