User talk:JenLouise

If you've read any of my comments and want to discuss POVs purely for interest's sake, then please do so.

Welcome

Saw you still had no welcome msg.

Welcome!

Hello, JenLouise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Bootcamp

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Also, I thought of one project which really needs help. See my reply here on the helpdesk. Garion96 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Eric Bana

Hey! Thanks for looking through the Eric Bana article and reworking some sentences. Any help you can offer to raise this article to featured status would be wonderful, as I have worked hard on it. I often miss things and make a lot of spelling and grammar errors so your input is greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reappropriation

Could you please see my response to you at Talk:Reappropriation? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Marxism and Marxist philosophy

Thank you for your interest in these pages. I trimmed a bit the repetitions in the Marxist philosophy page, and reversed your move at Marxism. Please see "Marxism" talk page for my explanation (mainly, articles are supposed to be autonomous; if you feel undue space has been given to these topics in the Marxism page and should rather be addressed in the more specialized, "Marxist philosophy" page — which much less, general users, will read, the title itself being sufficient to make more than one afraid... — than you should argue for it first (as these are controversial pages) and then propose a resume of them.) Cheers, looking forward to future contributions, Santa Sangre 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Santa Sangre, I did suggest it first on the discussion page and waited almost a week before making any changes. Anyway happy to discuss it so I have restarted the discussion there under your response. JenLouise

Sociology Project News

Sociology Project • News • August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject has been re-activated and new developments are afoot! We are putting in place some tools for classifying, categorizing and assessing sociology-related content on Wikipedia. Please have a look at the Tools section on the project page. Also, the Sociology article has been identified by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. This article has been listed as a good article for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. We're going to be working to improve the article to Featured article status. Please place Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology on your watchlist and Get involved!
You have recieved this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • CQ 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Peer review on Global justice, planned renovation of Justice

Dear JenLouise - given your interest in the social justice article, I wonder if you'd be interested in taking part in peer review on the new version of Global justice that I've been working on, and/or in commenting on my planned renovation of Justice? Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Cheers, --Sam Clark 10:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Marxism

Thanks for your note. I am travelling, and will have intermittent and not always very good access to the internet, so I will try to help when I can.

For what it is worth, I thijnk many good people have worked on these articles and while I have no doubt that they can be improved, I suggest that whatever flaws you see in it also take what is there on good faith - think about why it is there and assume people had reasons. I am not trying to discourage you form making changes, only suggesting that the very contents of what we already have can help give you ideas of what people think is important. As a rule, I think you can always turn to User:El_C and User: 172 for advice. I do not always agree with them, but they are thoughtful, well informed, and experienced. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but at the moment Marxisism is not among my top 'to do' articles. WP:PR is always a good avenue to seek support, and I invite to to seek comments at the (fledging) Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for late response. Whatever improvement is a good idea, and I guess a new global rewrite will allows for better homogeneity. I just had a quick look at your proposal, mainly at the structure, and will try to help as I can (but in a few weeks, no time just now). Overall, your plan seems a good idea, especially the part on specific Marxist authors (Gramsci, Althusser, etc.) and on various Marxist movements (although some are still missing; and let's not forget Philosophy in the Soviet Union, although I'm not that much knowledgeable in that field either). I'll only suggest to gather Marx & Engels together (I don't think it's necessary to create two different subsections for them; any details can be left over to their biographies, but on the whole they've cooperated enough together to be treated simultaneously). I also think you can just take out (or rather, move to criticisms, the ideological part on libertarians calling modern states "Marxists"). The first subsection on "Marxism" and "Marxian" seem a good way to introduce the matter. I wonder also if we could make in the introduction the distinction between Marxism as a political (and mass) movement (Communist parties and states), as an ideology (Marxist ideology, that is "Marxism" as popularly known) and Marxism as a political theory or philosophy (independent from orthodox or vulgar Marxism) — this distinction is common enough, but may be found in Etienne Balibar's works. Cheers and thanks for your work! Santa Sangre 14:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: this distinction between Marxism as a political movement, an ideology or a philosophy will also permit us to treat Socialism (i.e. Marxism as a political movement) in the relevant article. In other words, I think it's better to reserve the Marxism article for Marxist theory (or philosophy) and its relations with Marxist ideology (or orthodox Marxism). Thus, Marxism would be about Marxist theory and theorists, and Socialism and Communism about Marxism as a mass political movement (which, as Eric Hobsbawm liked to recall, gathered a third of humankind in 1950). Santa Sangre 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also much work need, IMO, in Marx's theory of human nature (which seems to endorse one commentator's POV to the exclusion of any other POV, quite surprising) and Marx's theory of alienation. These subarticles are probably the best way to introduce on specific topics of Marxist thought (as Commodity fetishism, etc.). Santa Sangre 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Influences on Karl Marx

Hi, Jen! I've being doing a research about Marx to write an article in which I make some comparisons between some of his basic concepts and Kardec's ones. The article you've written about the influences on Marx has been very useful, but I'd like you to tell me about academic sources, such as articles or books that support your statements. They look absolutely correct, but I unfortunately don't think I can point Wikipedia as a valid source, at least for now... Arges 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Justice

Hi - just thought you might like to know that I've just put the revised version of this article live. Comments welcome. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Articles not related to sociology

Category:Articles not related to sociology is up for deletion. It looks like it's pretty much a foregone conclusion already. I suggest creating a list on the WikiProject page, and announcing that any article that doesn't belong in the category will be removed after a week. --M@rēino 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural capital

Hi,

You imply to a book in this article but don't write its name. "On the other hand, two authors have introduced new variables into Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital. Emmison & Frow’s (1998) work centres on an exploration of the ability of Information Technology to be considered a form of cultural capital. "

I can't find this book in google. Can you tell me its name?--Communicator1 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also we should add the list of references in this article.--Communicator1 11:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I read this article carefully. I think we can candidate it as a good article after adding the list of references .--Communicator1 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I forgot to put references in. I will do so asap! Cheers. JenLouise

Thanks for this good article. Please answer my first question too. There isn't anything about "Emmison & Frow’s (1998)" on the web except in wikipedia. [1] I guess the year is wrong.--Communicator1 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a journal article so unless you searched for it in a journal database it wouldn't come up. I got it either through APAFT (Australian Public Affairs Full Text) database or EAI (Expanded Academic Index). I thought I put the details of the Journal into the article. If not I will do so. JenLouise 00:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, sorry for the late reply, but I've been away from wikipedia. If there's anything you need help with, just drop me a message. However, I am not a Marxism expert, and I am not a Marxist (I just agree with some of its social analysis), so I'm not sure whether I can be much help, detailed-content-wise. But, I'm good at structuring articles and also general formatting/layout stuff, so if you run into those don't hesitate to ask! :) -- infinity0 00:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good article

Hi,

I've candidated Cultural capital as a "good article":Wikipedia:Good article candidates#Social sciences (includes economy, law, politics, war). --Communicator1 12:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aduthura

Hi. I see you have copyedited Aduthurai after me. How do you think the Temples at Aduthurai section should be approached? I cannot make sense of most of the sentences in it, nor can I imagine how they could be clarified. To draw attention to this I have inserted the confusing tag. Some of the stories in the section might not even belong there.

Before I started with it, it was barely readable. You amended some errors I left. Thank you.

For some reason I become fond of articles I extensively edit. Rintrah 10:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Obvious

You marked this page for deletion as a redirect that doesn't make sense. There are a couple of things wrong with that: first of all, you should have tagged Obvious, not its talk page, because that's the one that was a redirect. And secondly, you should stick to one of the specific criteria for speedy deletion when requesting speedy deletion; redirects can be speedy deleted if they have a non-existent target, if they go from the main space to user space, or if they're based on an implausible typo, none of which apply here. In this case, Obvious redirects to an album containing the song "Obvious" by Jane's Addiction... but because of your confusion about it, and some other stuff, I have nominated this redirect for a full deletion discussion at WP:RFD; you might want to comment there. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that JenLouise has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page American Empire (Ghost in the Shell), and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 protests in Hungary

Hi, Jen! Thanks for pointing out the mistakes in the 2006 protests in Hungary. I tried to fix what I could. Most of the article was written by several Hungarians with different levels of ability in writing in English. Sometimes I try to fix the errors but my English is not perfect either. Could you please check the article now? Thanks! – Alensha ^talk 19:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors

Hi. Because you edited Aduthurai with me, I consider you my comrade. You might want to consider enlisting in the League of Copyeditors. Rintrah 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy lately and haven't had a chance yet to come by and thank you for your interest in the League of Copyeditors. I've read through quite a few of your edits, as well as the copyediting collaboration of Aduthurai between Rintrah and yourself. I have no doubt that you are going to be a fine addition to our little troupe and I look forward to working with you in the future. Trusilver 03:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[Projet:Sociologie]

Just a little look on this page !

League of Copyeditors participation drive!

Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:

• Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
• Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! BuddingJournalist 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

new sociology structure

Hi! I have moved this section to the bottom of the new strucutre article above so that people can read all of the discussions so far. Anyone interested in a new strucutre of the article will read the bottom of the old seciton even though it is in the middle of the talk page. Hope that's ok! JenLouise 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I read your comments (at the Talk:Sociology page) and will reply there. Thx, --Reswik 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you'll read my comments on the structure of the article, but I wanted to begin fleshing out the areas on a test page (things can easily be moved or changed once final agreement is reached on an initial structure. I don't want to jsut create my own one but I also don’t want to make significant changes to your one, unless you are happy for your page to be a 'work in progress' that we can all contribute to and update as the discussion on the structure progresses. JenLouise 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My original revised outline for Sociology, here User:Reswik/Sociology/sociology_article_outline, was only partly implemented. The outline needs revising. A revised copy of that could be a starting place or a new outline could be made. So far, the Soc article has been evolving bit by bit, section by section, over time. But, we need an outline too, I guess, to make sure stuff is not left out and balanced. A big need is to start going through and adding references or material that is referenced. I've only started barely pecking at that. --Reswik 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I revised the outline linked just above. Basically, the difference between the revised outline and the current article now the addition of sections on "sociological perspective" and on "subsdisciplines". Not sure if the second new section is needed. The current article plan could be revised based on looking more closely at good intro soc books and the emergent content of WP. I think I did the first when I made the first version of the revised outline. But several tries at looking at what is out there in practice are probably worth it. --Reswik 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

sociological paradigms -> sociological theories

Hi! we seem to be having a bit of interaction at the moment! I've actually reversed your redict - possibly just temporarily! - because of the reasons on [Talk:Sociological paradigms]] but it is only to allow the discussion to happen first before a dramatic move like that takes place. JenLouise 02:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes, we're crossing paths in a few places it seems. Thanks for your thoughts at the Talk:Sociological paradigm page. I replied there. I think the redirect is a good idea and explain further why I think this is so. I look forward to more possible discussions on this and other matters. The organization of sociology articles in various ways needs more talk...over time. :) --Reswik 03:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, At the sociology category talk page you write, "This category still has 178 articles sitting in the main area and most of the ones I have looked at have little or no relationship to sociology." Sorry to bother, but could you provide a link or describe how to find these 178 articles in the main area. Thanks, --Reswik 17:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, if you go to Category:Sociology and scroll below the sub-categories, you will see the beginning of the list of articles contained in this category. I have already started recategorising those that have absolutely no relationship to sociology. There are many more whose relationship is tenuous at best. I will list some suggestions on the Category_talk:Sociology page for cleaning up this category. JenLouise 03:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) On the topic of this section: If you have time, check out the Sociological theory article -- there are some new subsections which list various kinds of sociological theory by a few subdisciplines. It would be nice if eventually main theories in most sociology subdisciplines were represented. (Then it would be interesting to cross-reference those by main frameworks/perspectives/general soc theories used.) Anyway, this is one reason why I think using "sociology theory" is a good title/category. The Listing main subdiscipline theories with the general theories seems helpful, interesting, etc. --Reswik 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On the category sociology page, I rejoined my comment about sociological/social theory with the main paradigm/theory string. I actually agree that using sociological theory is better than than social theory. I said social theory (sociology) "might be" better. The way I wrote it, it made it sound like I had a stronger postion. I didn't clarify that I was just discussing that point of view and didn't really hold that view. Sorry. Back to the task at hand: Can you summarize in a sentence or two (or as brief as is practical), here or on the talk page, why you think we should use different terms (paradigm/theory) to distinguish between more general theories and more specific theories? I'll do same in reply. --Reswik 14:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful work at the soc categories talk page. Busy today. I'll try to reply tomorrow. --Reswik 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Things got hectic here in the last week. Will be back to this soon. --Reswik 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sale, Greater Manchester FAC

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sale, Greater Manchester article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Violetriga

Would you be willing to act as second in a WP:RFC about this user? She has been acting unilaterally to vandalize a number of pages by deleting all the data on dubious grounds; not only List of Marxists, but also List of occultists, List of transhumanists, and likely more. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that User:Violetriga is "vandalising" pages or that they are giving "dubious" grounds. Wikipedia must be very strict in its material regarding living people and being labeled a Marxist if you are not could potentially be very upsetting, therefore being conscientious in protecting Wikipedia is a good thing. However I do not believe that User:Violetriga has been acting in the most constructive manner and has not followed a proper process. I would definitely agree to an RFC on the article, and get a resolution one way of the other. I would consider an RFC on the use once I look at the history of the examples you provided and feel that the same disregard for process has been shown. However the RFC policies are very clear on the level of resolution that needs to happen, including 2 notices on the talk page by 2 different people. JenLouise 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your care and rationality are refreshing. The article I was chiefly concerned with (List of occultists) is a particularly obvious example, since the article obviously included people who were not living; she also claims that these lists should not exist at all; and she was unresponsive to a comment on the article's talk page that I left after reverting her the first time. As I see it, vandalism is vandalism; there's no exception for admins or established users, and repeatedly deleting data in the absence of either process or consensus falls within the scope of the vandalism policy. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Classical Marxism

Hallo JenLouise, thanks for your efforts to meditate the discussion of whether F. Engels was or wasn't a main theorist of classical Marxism. I've removed again the dialog composed of editing comments by me and Grant. So far my intention was to keep this dispute on a low flame, hoping this could save time of all who are involved. My concern is that to cite edit comments in this form on discussion page could stir up the conflict in one way or the other, or at least is not the most direct way to solve the problem. So I hope you don't mind my removal. Let me add that I do agree with you re-adding Engels name to the introduction again, as well as with your appeal to Grant not to remove it again until the question is solved.

Meanwhile, I have serious doubts about the article itself. First of all, it seems that it doesn't cite any scholary source using the term "classical Marxism". So how can we know what "classical Marxism" actually is? Who when where coined the term? Or is this term original research? If "classical Marxism" exists, does it comprise only Marx and Engels, or also pre-1917 theorist like Kautsky, Bernstein, Luxemburg, Plechanov and Lenin? Greetings --Schwalker 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sociology of deviance

I"m the user that posted the article on crime. I put it on that particular page because I'm doing a project for my sociology class and our topic is the sociology of deviance. Our professor will check that page and want to see my edits. So maybe you could leave it up for another week or so just until he gets a chance to see it. I really don't want to fail this project. Thank you for you understanding, and if that does not work please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisB19 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine I can do that. Here's my profs. email address: welser@ohio.edu