Talk:Phenomenology (sociology)

Section headings
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)

I did not notice the changes and changed them back because they were not consistent and I could not figure out what was going on. Feel free to return them to your format. I am not concerned with the format issues particularly until I get the text worked out. I have noticed however that I can't modify the bibliography and I have things to add. I am also new to the system. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASchutz (talk • contribs) 03:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw you have been busy with the references. I shall explain how they work on your talk page, but if you just want to lump in some info, that's fine with me too, I'll convert them. (just add them in below ) Martijn Hoekstra 10:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Readability
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) ______________________________________________________________ If you have tagged the article because you feel that points are easily debatable, you have an obligation to note the debatable points.

What is, or is not, "jargon", is a loose accusation when you don't specify what it is that you are talking about.

An alternative interpretation of your unhappiness might stem from the fact that you are unfamiliar with the subject matter. This intellectual tradition is quite different from that of Analytical philosophy.

I did not claim the article as "mine" - your criticism is made out of context. There have simply been no other contributors to this article - I obviously have no control over this fact.

I'm not sure about 'jargon', but comprehensibility is certainly an issue. I am 'inside the field' of sociology and am well-acquainted with Weber, though I cannot make much sense of phenomenological sociology on the basis of this article.

It appears to rely heavily on a great deal of assumed knowledge.

118.93.45.200 (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________

Phenomenological sociology is an application of phenomenological theory (philosophy). In order to understand the former, you need to first understand the latter.

The best introduction to phenomenological theory currently in print is Sokolowski [see bibliography]. After you have read this short book, read Michael Barber's synopsis of his excellent biography of Alfred Schutz [this will directly tie phenomenology to Weber's interests]. You can find Barber's essay online at the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy (free/downloadable). If you are hooked at this point, read Schutz's Structures of the Life-World. Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.45 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is of poor quality. It does not even fullfil the purpose of an encyclopedic artilce, that is, that anyone interested in the theme (regardless of background) can get a quick but powerfull understanding of the topic and where to get more information on various things related to the theme when they so want. This article offers none of that. It doesn't help much that some one is writing stuff like "in order to understand something you need to read this and that"... encyclopedia remember? Or do you expect to go and look at an article on DNA or an Anime author only to get "in order to understand you must have studied this and that?? Seriously? 88.113.182.30 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________

As it stands, the article is clear to me; a concise rendering of a difficult topic. Technical language is unavoidable in a highly specialised field. Compare the article to any complex mathematical topic (which is not my field) where you'd expect to cross reference terminology. Lordrossell (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * After all these years, the article is still a mess to read and impossible to understand. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

Overhaul Project
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)

_________________________________________________________

Requested move 1 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move, therefore, moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Phenomenological sociology → Phenomenology (sociology) – For consistency with names of corresponding articles in other disciplines: Phenomenology (psychology), Phenomenology (physics), Phenomenology (architecture), Phenomenology (archaeology), Phenomenology (philosophy). (I do not expect this move to be contentious, but I am asking first because this is an established article and I am not a regular contributor to it.) - Darwin/Peacock  [Talk] 19:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology considers the names to be interchangeable, so we should go with the title more consistent with those of other fields. bd2412  T 20:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.