This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Response to DoubleGrazing comment about paywalled sourcesedit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since "sociodicy" is a scientific (at least social scientific) term, many of the sources are indeed behind paywalls. But not all of them are. And, in any case, many wikipedia articles necessarily refer to paywalled sources. Still, if you google 'sociodicy' you get a decent number of hits, with enough public sources to get a sense of the thing. Plus, the article as written refers to many wikipedia articles about relevant scholars and sources. My own sense, having encountered this word in a NYT article, was that it warranted an entry in wikipedia. 198.55.233.67 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
