Talk:Theory of religious economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment.


Contents

[edit] References

Who is responsible for removing defunct tags, like the source tag on this article? Second, the formatting of the current references seems off, I think there are explanations in the manual of style, or perhaps we should look at examples, like the Max Weber bio article, which was featured before. --Htw3 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great progress

Great progress everyone! This entry is really coming along. The section on the development of the theory needs work, as does the section on debates. Also there needs to be a section on current research (not all the current work is embroiled in debate with people outside the research tradition, though much is). I know that Dr. Paul Froese at Baylor University has done a bunch of work related to religion and atheism, especially documenting changes in the former soviet union. --Htw3 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many (all?) of the changes and additions I made a couple seeks ago seem undeveloped. It would be very good to see some new progress. --Htw3 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supply side form of theory?

Is this a supply side form of theory? How does it explain the difference in religiosity in western Europe and the USA when both have had religious freedom for a long time? Andries (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andries. Yes, this is a supply side theory. There is not shortage of articles on the topic, and the specific contrast between USA and W. Europe is a well discussed topic. See an introductory set of readings, below: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386688 http://arhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2000/00000039/00000001/art00003journals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.261?cookieSet=1&journalCode=soc http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2000/00000039/00000001/art00003 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0021-8294.00054 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657339 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386686 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386556 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2096331 --65.24.145.136 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the above was me. --Htw3 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misguided suggestion

Andries has suggested that this article should be folded into his article on theories of religion. That document is more apprppriate as a senior thesis or a draft of a review article than an encyclopedia. It is too long and not clearly focused on a single topic. While the current article on Religious Economies is largely the product of undergraduate students, it is, however, entirely consistent with the notion of an encyclopedia, in terms of focus[narrow], and is far more attuned to contemporary research in the scientific study of religion than is Andries' personal essay on Theories of Religion.

I would also point out that the template spam at the top of the religious economy entry is a rather thin attempt to bully the situation to one authors personal goals. Sadly, I have little to no time to devote to this topic. But don't take my word for it. In short, any literate person can simply perform basic searches in Google scholar and reveal a number of obvious facts: (1) the theory of religious economy is a vibrant contemporary area of research (2) there are several scholars [e.g. PhDs in sociology, political science, etc] actively involved, including at least: Stark, Bainbridge, Iannaccone, Finke, Gill, Froese, Warner, Lu, Bader, Grim, Lang, Chesnut. . . . (3) Religious Economy is the proper term to define the field, as it refers to the unique contribution of the theory to the debate, rather the than the generic and implicitly derogatory 'rational choice' label. I hope that the many good Wikipedians can weigh in on this situation after doing a modicum of background research. Once again, I ask you not to take my word as an assessment of the situation-- Google can illuminate far more persuasively than I. and this.--Htw3 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed one template, but I think there is very good reason for the other three templates.The topic is not properly introduced and contextualized.
The language also needs a lot of work and questions in an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate tone. Examples of sentences that need work are.
"The reason European churches have such low attendance is because they don't believe. But they churches are not offering what the religious market wants."
"Why are strict churches growing in popularity in US and around the world? Are less strict churches in decline, or are they simply later in their organizational and demographic life cycles?"
""See Liberal Islam, Liberal Judaism, Liberal Christianity, Conservative Judaism and Conservative Christianity." Comment:the questions are not answered or explained in these articles
Andries (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree that this article needs a great deal of work. The main sections are underdeveloped, the language is awkward in several places, and the entire section surveying different types of religions is an unhelpful distraction. Also, I agree that the introduction is overly terse and lacks context. However the intro is largely correct, and can be easily improved. Unless anyone objects I will make changes to the intro, eliminate the lame survey of religions section, clean up some language and make stronger connections to the research literature where I can see the connections. --Htw3 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I admit that this is a valid encyclopedia subject, but the article as such contains only little redeemable encyclopedic contents and can hence quite easily be included in the article theories of religion. For example, digressions about the contents of the various religions and moral values are off topic here and its relations with the this theory can be described in one or two sentences. Once the rational choice section of that article gets too big than a summary will be kept there and this will be the main article. Andries (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I still think it would be a mistake to fold this article into the longer religion article. In short, the rational choice approach to religion (see Iannaconne's 2006 overview) is both a more general, and less informative title for the specific research tradition associated with the notion of religious economies. In the longer religion article it is helpful to remember that, while the religious economy research program is the largest and most active thread of research applying economic models to understand religious dynamics, it is not the only type of research that seeks to explain aspects of religion with models derived (partly) from economic models. --Htw3 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit accordingly. Please note that the intro should contain a complete summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. I will at least wait two more weeks from now before I merge if I ever merge. I find the excerpt that I quoted here above quoted unintelligible. Andries (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an ongoing assignment?

Is this article an ongoing assignment, or is it open to editing by anyone?--Editor2020 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is open to anyone to edit. It is no longer the subject of an assignment. Please feel free to make it better. I will try to make some substantive improvements also, but can only do so as my other time demands allow. --Htw3 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Development/Research (removed from article)

  • H. Richard Niebuhr: In his 1929 publication, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Niebuhr discusses the competing denominations of Christianity[1]. Niebuhr states that economic factors are the primary cause of divisions of the church[2]. Also, Niebuhr suggests that economic stratification is responsible for maintaining divisions in the church that were caused by other factors[3].
So, this is a great paragraph, but it doesn't at all deal with the topic of the theory of religious economy. In grossly oversimplified terms, ToRE advocates say religion is an exchange of goods between men and gods--worship for eternal life, for instance. Niebuhr, on the other hand, and again grossly oversimplified, said that rich folk don't like to go to church with poor folk. I'm sure this paragraph can find an appropriate home here in Wikipedia somewhere, but this article really isn't the place for it, despite the similarities of terms used. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Further reading versus notes/references

Can you please seperate the books and papers that have been used for the article from the further reading section? The first should go into a notes/references section. The section further reading should only contain works that have not been cited. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.Andries (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome, new editors!

Hi, and thanks to all of you who are learning to edit Wikipedia by expanding this article. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, please understand that the edits that I and others make have the goal of IMPROVING your contributions. A couple of quick points:

  • Additions to the article are not signed, but contributions to the talk pages (i.e., here) are.
  • References to the same souce (e.g., Stark's Sociology book) can be combined, rather than repeated. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Jclemens, References to the same book should be made more detailed with page numbers, not combined. Andries (talk)
    • Err, right--that's another improvement. What I MEANT to convey is that even in those cases, there's certainly no reason to have the same ISBN and publisher in the reflist 20+ times. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strictness and such

I have several problems with the sections entitled "growth of strict religions" and "Strict Regulations to enforce Strong Ties".

  • I perceive "Strict" to be pejorative. In all of Stark's writings with which I'm familiar, he uses the terms "church" and "sect" to differentiate between what he characterizes religious movements that maintain low and high tension, respectively, with their societies. Is there a good reason to use "strict" instead of calling out tension between religious movement and society?
  • Overall, the use of cult, church, and sect in these sections seems confused and imprecise.
  • Is there a good reason to include questions in the text? I'm inclined to rephrase them as statements.
  • Last I heard, it was free rider problem not free loader...
  • The starting point of the second quote (which ends with "... comply earnestly.") is not indicated.
  • ... and there's a few other grammatical errors, tenses and whatnot.

Please feel free to alter your text to make it more clear. I could (and might) fix some or all of these, but I'd rather give the right of first refusal to the editor who included the section. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)