Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Douglas Massey

I was doing some work on Douglas Massey, who seems to be a notable sociology professor at Princeton University, but I'm not very happy with the article. I would appreciate it if other editors could take a look at the article and make whatever changes seem appropriate. --Eastmain 07:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment question

I noticed that this project's assessment department wasn't yet completed, so I took the liberty of finishing it. My question is whether or not some of articles relating to socio-economics such Household income in the United States or Affluence in the United States are part of this project's focus. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think articles on demographics and socio-economic patterns are within the scope of sociology, hence this project. While important as instances of knowledge about class and such, these detailed articles could be evaluated as of "low" importance, according to the current rating scheme. --Reswik 17:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Today, I added a number of WikiProject Sociology evaluations to individual sociology and sociology-related articles. I reviewed some articles currently in the good articles subsection "Social sciences and society/Culture and society", some listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Organization page, some listed on the Subfields of sociology page, and some listed as sub-articles in main sociology articles. --Reswik 17:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sociology article

Hi, based on comments on the sociology article talk page and the recent de-listing from good articles, I have created a revised sociology article outline and will start editing the article soon. My comment about this is here: new structure of article. Feel free to dive in... --Reswik 14:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Social Darwinism to Social darwinism?

"Social Darwinism" has recently been moved to "Social darwinism". This seems unusual usage to me (and my spellchecker) so I've raised the question at User talk:Piotrus#Social Darwinism ([1]) – any comments? ... dave souza, talk 10:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a problem with changing the name back, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents section concludes that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun:", so Darwinism as deriving from the proper noun "Darwin" properly begins with a capital letter, even when preceded by "social". Anyone feel otherwise? , .. dave souza, talk 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Potential article of interest

Hi, don't know if this article is of interest to the good people of the Sociology Project... Trafficking in human beings

Chwyatt 13:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing out this article. I put it in our list of articles. It is ranked mid-level due to being on a specific topic. Top-ranked articles would be the most general topics, such as Social structure. --Reswik 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics about social customs.

I'm not quite sure where to ask, but I have a list of missing topics related to social customs and the like. I have checked for any equivalent articles but I'd appreciate if other could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, by your user page, I see you've done a lot of work on WP and that you have a list of many types of missing articles across various topics. (Note: I'm partly thinking out loud in replying to you... about priorities for this wikiproject.) There are many missing sociology articles, at least thousands. Indeed, I just got an email notice from an international encyclopedia of sociology for which writers are developing several thousand articles. (The WP sociology list of rated articles has just over 600 articles, though we could list thousands of existing WP articles as sociologists study most aspects of society.)

The social customs and other topics which you list would seem to fit more in focus of anthropology, though cultural anthropology and sociology increasingly overlap in some areas in this regard. If you haven't already, you might ask for input on an anthropology-related Wikipedia page. A number of the topics you list are quite specific. We need good specific articles. It would be an interesting task to develop a list of thousands of such to write. Also, as I'm sure you know, many very general and key articles in the social sciences, including those specifically on family and life stage articles such as you list, are very much in need of extensive editing work. --Reswik 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My main problem is that I don't think I'm qualified to write good articles about many of the subjects. - Skysmith 12:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is possible somehow to recruit someone(s) with expertise and co-write various articles -- Reswik 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The term 'race'

I have just been reading the page Social Darwinism, in which the term 'race' is introduced as a concept used by various 'thinkers' and others, mainly from the 19th Century. The article later uses the term as if it is an accepted scientific term. It is not. This is made clear in the lead section. The term is in itself bigoted and there is no evidence, and almost no support in the scientific community, for a concept of race (in humans). I believe that this article has been altered to support racist positions in other articles. Tacit support for racist concepts are given by citing an aviator and other people whose opinions are not worthy of inclusion. The banner on the talk page is from this project, it is given a high importance rating, which is questionable and a B class rating, which is laughable. Would someone in the project mind giving it a fix up? This poisonous notion needs close attention and careful handling. Thanks. - Fred 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree that concepts of race should be critiqued. Various articles on race in Wikipedia need attention, starting with Race and related articles. There are various racist claims/positions in such articles. Volunteer efforts in editing social science/studies articles really needs to increase in Wikipedia. Feel free to dive in on this topic, perhaps by starting with a comment on the article's talk page, if you haven't made one already.

I gave Social Darwinism a high rating because the topic has been significant in the history of social thought and other social theory historical topics have high ratings (and this is all going to be very approximate; top/high/mid/low is not a very flexible scale and what is high will differ by what criteria one uses to evaluate importance; over time perhaps things will sort out; the current ratings are a start...); the B rating is not a stamp of approval but relates to the amount of development of the writing. Ideological positions will flux in an article. --Reswik 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the very term 'race', I avoid it. The term racist often implies a view based on race. I think of it as a believer in the very idea. The only advantage in attending an article on 'Social Darwinism' is to be had by the adherents of this pseudo-theory in keeping it a 'live issue'. I simply removed the reference in the article with greater notability. But thanks for your reply. - Fred 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. Yet, the article Race has a prominent location in WP (such as a top core topic rating in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version (1.0 CD) project. To quote, "This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration."

The race article does include critical views. And, Social Darwinism has links from various directions. Hence, these articles, and many others, are sites of cultural struggle... which WP and WP editors can't avoid, we and WP being embedded in various social structures and ongoing struggles. So, it seems necessary for critical perspectives to be included and refined in those articles and ongoing reviews engaged. --Reswik 13:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am now sufficiently alarmed. I will pay more attention to this area. I believe that the concerns you have raised with me, can easily be contested on NPOV and WP:CSB. Thanks for bringing my attention to the extent of this issue. Bye for now, - Fred 14:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Ta for link. The project is up to 0.5 now. I coud not find race, racism was there. It was in the top 1000 topics - under social issues. - Fred 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Professor Burns has posted here

Hey all, You may be interested that Tom R. Burns has added a couple articles here at WP, Meta-power and Sociology of human consciousness as User:Tomburns. The articles are afd, so I just want to encourage you all to stop by his user page and welcome him, as having your first articles (and a major part of your lifes research) face AfD right away can be very discouraging. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about tagging subcultures

Aloha. I recently tagged Hippie and Gothic subculture with the soc. assessment tag. If this is not appropriate, could someone contact me? Thanks in advance. —Viriditas | Talk 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Obesity

I'm one of the medical editors working on obesity. Judging from the enormous amounts of vandalism it receives, this is a very popular article. Moreover, medical authorities are almost unanimous that there is an epidemic of obesity.

While the medical content of the article is quite reasonable, it has been felt for some time that it needs more input from the social sciences angle:

• Portrayals in culture and indicators of social acception/exclusion - what is the evidence that obesity is or has been socially (un)acceptable in historical context.
• Social and cultural factors interacting with pure medical causes in increasing obesity prevalence; the article presently lists a whole load of things, mostly unsourced.

I was wondering if any of this WikiProject's contributors would be interested in taking a peek at the obesity article & offer recommendations. JFW | T@lk 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Strategies for improvement

I'm ready to sink my teeth into this project. I've been working on our "child" project WikiProject Community for some time now and I've learnt some things that can help. I've started the /Organization subpage for parsing the List of sociology topics. Compare it with the List of community topics and follow the breadcrumbs. CQ 03:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Great job on revitalizing the project, I will be happy to chip in and help a little!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be great to order the List of sociology topics similar to the List of community topics. Just wodnering, when we say topics what specifically does that cover? Is that any page relating to sociology (hope not) or is it similar to branches of sociology? How does one define waht should be included and what should not? Do you still keep an alphabetical list to help someone who just wants to browse? Can we being by creating a draft of what it will look like somewhere so that we can all work on it together? JenLouise 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That will be an ambitious undertaking, JenLouise, but worthy of the effort, IMO. I started (a year ago) the subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Organization for the very purpose of ording the massive alphabetical list we now have. I'm a layman with only a general interest in Sociology, so I really couldn't get much further on my own. I think the subpage and its talk page is a good place to work through organizing the list and brainstorming what should go where, thus... • Q^#o • 14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Income reminder

I just spend a lot of time editing the Social class article, espcially the part where people used the term "income" w/o specifying what type of income they're talking about. Take this statement: "the upper middle class... Their average income is $120,000 a year, and they comprise 14% of the population." Personal income or household income. Well the top 15% of persons make $62,500+ while the top 15% of households make $100,000+. So I'm guessing it must be the latter, in which case we are not talking about 14% of the population but 14% of households! So please, please, if you ever see a case like this statement or are writting about private income yourself, make sure it's clear whether or not it's household, personal or per capita. The differences are huge, espcially in American society. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW: It says this project doesn't have a userbox yet, so I took the liberty of creating one; Template:User Sociology. Signature^brendel

How do use it? JenLouise 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just put {{User Sociology}} on your userpage and the userbox will appear. Signature^brendel 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this article belong?

Hello WP Sociology, I'm wondering if the article Harry Potter fandom would be appropriate to include within the scope of your WikiProject. It's tagged as, appropriately, under the HP project, but I figured there must be something for fandom, and I think human interaction is the best. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think the article doesn't quite fit in its current form. This article seems more like a description of the fan world than of social science about HP. However, there are probably humanities & social science literatures about HP for which a section could be included in the article. There are some points in the article that touch on media studies or popular culture studies kind of approaches. It might make sense to look to include this article in lists and categories related to these fields. I don't know if there are wikiprojects for those areas. --Reswik 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Taiwanese aborigines

Taiwanese aborigines is currently in WP:GAC, but we're thinking of withdrawing it from GAC and moving it directly into WP:FAC.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated! It has two peer review pages (use whichever one you prefer):

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines/archive1
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Peer review/Taiwanese aborigines

Thanks! --Ling.Nut 22:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment at capture-bonding

Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment at Feminism

A few days ago User:Altoids Man made an edit to a sentence defining Feminism. His claim is that the gender inequalities that feminism campaigns about are "percieved" rather than real[2]. This edit has sparked a debate on the talk page. It is disputed by 3 editors and supported by 1 (not including User:Altoids Man). If anyone has the time please have a look at it here--Cailil 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you for that request, we do need a larger audience. By way of correction, my claim is different than what Cailil asserts. My claim is that the article lacks the NPOV and I offer suggestions to improve it. My claim is not disputed by three authors, but two. Kindly read the comment history, thank you. --Altoids Man 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

inclusion (disability rights)

Just because the article "seems to have an anti-US sentiment" does not mean that other countries with similar attitudes towards the disabled-- Thailand, for example, which I am currently in right now -- cannot be added to even the article out. That's one suggestion.

Another suggestion for readers/editors of this article would be to consult the sources, especially the "Social Movement Left Out" article, and to consult articles on Wikipedia, for example the main Disability article, which has in it an example of how in Sweden, they've apparently recognized the disabled population as equals or at least more equal than the US views them, for years, whereas in the US the disabled are regarded by many as "almost a different species."

To me, a quote like that suggests that US activists are NOT pioneers in this field, but are in fact lagging behind, and actually, other similar activists in the UK and Canada have personally told me that Inclusion there has been reigning, more or less, for decades now, whereas in the US itself it is JUST getting started (which is how I originally wrote the article, to communicate that fact).

I dunno where the sources listed are gotten from. I cut and pasted them from the original Inclusion (value and practice) article rather than obtaining new ones to back up assertions made here, so by my view the article could be recategorized as unreferenced, although certainly the "Social Movement Left Out" article and the other articles referenced in the Disability article and the Ableism article could be good enough to copy to here as examples of what could back up many of the assertions made. -Kiko, current location 124.120.2.107 15:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inclusion_%28disability_rights%29"

Death in culture

If anyone is interested in working on a new article, or commenting on the split proposal, please join the discussion on Talk:Death. I'm happy to help out, but I only really watch the article at the moment. Richard001 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination WikiProject

I'm looking to start a Wikiproject for articles on discrimination topics. Were it to be a child WP, it would seem to fall best under Sociology as discrimination is a sociological phenomenon. How does this sort of Wikiproject relationship work? TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism topics template

I have recently created a template: {{Racism topics}}. It is still not complete. Before it is added to any article, I would like it to be completed. If anyone would like to help, please do.--Sefringle^Talk 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Aging offender

I've begun this article, which was requested over at WP:LE though it is more with your project I fell. It goes slightly over my head but if I started it, I knew others would come along to fix it. Anyone who wants to take a look is welcome I will keep going with it. SGGH ^speak! 15:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Social class in the United States up for GA!

Social class in the United States is now up for GA. Please have a look if you can. Regards, Signature^brendel 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Social sciences is now the core topics collaboration

Social sciences is clearly an important article for this project, and it's ranked "top" priority. We are just starting a collaboration to improve the article, and we'd appreciate help from experts in the field (not me, I'm a chemist!). Please help where you can. Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please someone fix this terrible page

Optimum population - Totaly unreferenced. An OR nightmare. Please can someone with an interest in or knowledge of the subject (that rules me out) fix this. Willy turner 15:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Strain theory (sociology) / Anomie theory

Hello. I was looking through the articles needing wikifying, and one of the ones that came up was Anomie theory. Now, to me, in dealing with Merton's theories this seems to be essentially a duplication of the article Strain theory (sociology), which is clearly more detailed and better written. I thought I'd flag this up with you guys - I would be tempted to put Anomie theory up for deletion with a redirect to strain theory, but perhaps there's something subtle here I'm missing. Robotforaday 20:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical materialism

I added this to the articles needing attention. The article needs much more referencing and attention to NPOV. The criticism section is particularly weak at present. Itsmejudith 09:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Start class rating for scientific method

I am questioning some of the ratings awarded by members of the wikiproject. What is the criterion by which they are judged? When scientific method is rated start class and scientific management is rated mid class, what is the criterion? The article with which I am familiar has existed since 2001 and has been worked on by hundreds of editors, with thousands of edits. So why might it be labelled 'start'. --Ancheta Wis 07:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Might you consider simply withdrawing the rating until some of you have time to spend on the article? Ancheta Wis

The sociology of science is an active subfield which includes a number of perspectives about the nature of science. The sociology content of the scientific method article is at an incomplete start level, even as a summary, (as is the case for many articles in WP in regards to sociology, hence you will find some other start ratings on articles that have had a lot of work). On revisiting the scientific method talk page now, I noticed that the philosophy project also gives the article a start rating. I think the rating should remain until the article is revised; it serves as both a work-to-do notice and a notice to the inquiring reader. Here is something I have been pondering: Perhaps some focused comment to the effect that a start rating relates to sociology content could be a suboption of the rating template. But this is not the case for all start ratings, so perhaps someone could edit the template so that it could include comments with dates (perhaps in a sub-box that can be collapsed) -- or perhaps there is a template function already that could be used.

Scientific management is a relatively important topic in the sociology of labor and work. I would rate it as of middle importance, given the rough scale we are using. If I rated it as of top importance, that was a mistake. The top rating doesn't seem merited, so I'll revise that rating. Thanks for the input. --Reswik 13:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been six months since this was last raised. I will comment out the sociology tag on the scientific method talk page, as it is apparent that no one has the time to improve the sociology part of the scientific method. When someone from the soc project has time to contribute to scientific method, as evidenced by actual work on the article, they will then be welcome to tag the page. --Ancheta Wis 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Talk:Sociology of science rates stub-class. I have inserted a tag in the Scientific method article for interested soc project members who wish to contribute to the soc article. --Ancheta Wis 15:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for qualified comments

Hi.

There is a discussion at Talk:Emo (slang) as to whether it is appropriate to change it to Emo (subculture)) or some other social related term.

The main argument against such a move is that it violates wikipedia's policies on WP:OR, as no WP:RS has been found to support terming it as an officially recognised "subculture".

Help from more sociology orientated wikipedians would be helpful.--ZayZayEM 02:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Call for editors

The article Portrayal of women in comics has reached a point where it contains much material and many references, but has sections that are leaning toward becoming soapbox, with original-research essay writing and phrases like "Another recent source of outrage is...."

The article writers are comics fans, and this article is part of WikiProject Comics. It could use some editors experienced in writing about sociological issues in a neutral, academic way. Thank you for any help! --Tenebrae 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang)

We're having a little trouble over at Talk:Emo (slang) on whether it is a subculture or not. We've had to open an RfC on it. Please help this discussion, as we cannot reach consensus. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic analysis

There is a new article, Demographic analysis, that may benefit from review since speedy delete was denied. -- Jreferee T/C 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking

Just noticed a smoking article/category with the sociology tag -(or was someone trying a hoax tagging exercise?) is there anyone associated with this project who might confirm that smoking behaviour is a sufficiently incorporatable behaviour under the sociology tag at all? There is a lot of smoking.tobacco. etc articles not in a project - and given categories that simply put it as health risk, addiction, and tobaccco - possible the smoking category is one that deserves closer attention and maintenance for POV and general watching - anyone? SatuSuro 07:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Surnames and genealogy

Would you consider surnames, lineage analysis and genealogy to be in scope for this WikiProject? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Social

I'm not sure what to make of the article Social. It has no references and looks like original research. It's been around since August 2003. There are 700 links to Social, but I suspect that many of those links are not to incorporate the text of the Social article but some other Sociology topic. There is a 2003 discussion about the Social article at Things to be moved to Wiktionary. The term "social" is identified as a scientific adjective at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle/Scientific adjectives, which may mean that it does not really lend itself as a topic for a Wikipedia article. There is a link to the Social article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts, but it does not say that it is a pseudoscience. I'm thinking about listing it at AfD as an inappropriate content fork. If those here consider this a legit topic, I won't list it at AfD. However, this 2003 topic probably is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Merge might be a better approach. Thoughts? -- Jreferee t/c 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree: merge and delete original research. Why have an entire encyclopedia article on an adjective? —Aetheling 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

African American culture

Hello. We over at WP:AFRO are working on African American culture to get it to WP:FA status. It's also the current WP:ACID article for two more days. We'd appreciate any help you guys might be able to offer. Thanks. CJ 15:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution FAR

Sociocultural evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

I have added {{topic|Sociology}} to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science and wanted to take the pulse of this WikiProject to see if that was an appropriate move. If yes, I would suggest that a note be added to the main page directing that deletion notifications can be found there. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rivethead" Counterculture

Greetings... I would like to put a Sociology WikiProject template on the Rivethead (subculture) talk page. What are the proper proceedings? Musicaindustrial 20:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic sociology topics
• List of basic community topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment at Patriarchy, Patriarchy (anthropology), and Template: patriarchy (ethnographies)

The claim on these articles is that patriarchy is a universal phenomenon that is biologically determined. There is, however, evidence from anthropology which contradicts that claim. I have managed to incorporate some of that evidence into the articles, but I still think these pages are candidates for tagging for lack of neutrality. Furthermore, the author of a table and a list that appears on both (see the above-referenced template) insists on citing work by an anthropologist, who argues that patriarchy is not universal, to evince his claim that it is, in fact, universal. That constitutes original research, doesn't it? It is also further evidence of the bias I mentioned above. Ntheriault 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)ntheriault

Proposed merger of Sociology of deviance and Deviant behavior

I have proposed a merger between sociology of deviance and deviant behavior to a common article Deviance (sociology). These two articles have substantially the same structure and cover the same theoretical material, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Please comment on the articles' talk pages rather than here. Madcoverboy 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrosociobiology at AFD

Astrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Experts on sociological experts of aging needed

If you look at the article on aging, you will see that it is currently under the jurisdiction of a Wikipedia Project group concerned with biology. However, this is a topic that invites work from a number of team members in different disciplines; indeed, I have made considerable edits to the article on aging using my own area of expertise, that of psychology. I think that the article on aging could really do with the attention of an expert on sociological aspects of aging; as you can see, both here and in the article on gerontology, I have made a plea at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#Gerontology to start a new WikiProject group which may interest sociologists. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Railway town

Hi. Is this article within your scope. Taemyr (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sociocultural evolution

Has been downgraded from FA to B status :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)