Talk:Life course theory

Copyvio

Resolved

 – Smallman12q (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a VERY close copy, close enough that it could be considered a copyvio. I would suggest a rewrite. Vicenarian ^{(Said | Done)} 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited a bit more...it's close, but I don't believe it's blatant infringement.Smallman12q (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. :) Vicenarian ^{(Said | Done)} 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the copy&paste part is still in the article. Perhaps we should simply delete the first part. Blauenfels (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Life Course Approach

In fact, the lemma Life course approach deals with the same thing, only from another discipline - health research. Therefore, I would highly recommend to merge both of the articles to prove the interdisciplinarity of the approach as described in the article. Nonetheless, I also ply for using the title "life course approach" instead of "life course theory" because there is no such thing as a theory of the life course - at least from a sociological viewpoint. Life course theory is still an empirical field with only some theoretical conceptions but no coherent theory at all. Blauenfels (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I merged and shortened the two articles, because there were no objections. I have chosen the term "approach" because "theory" implies a formal social theory which is non-existent so far (cf. Mayer 2009). Blauenfels (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/16295_Chapter_1.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)