Talk:Max Weber/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• DAB links problems with Depression and Magic.

• Checklinks says that the newschool.edu URL is 404. I think the target is probably this: http://www.newschool.edu/nssr/het/profiles/weber.htm

• The Dirk Käsler book has a page range of 2– ...no end of range.
• The Hartmut Lehmann, Guenther Roth has a page range of 95–.
• The Paul Honigsheim, Alan Sica book has a page range of 86–.
• The P. G. C. van Schie, Gerrit Voermann book has a page range of 64–.
• The Basit Bilal Koshul book has a page range of 11–.
• The Andrew J. Weigert book has a page range of 110–.
• The Richard Swedberg, Ola Agevall book has a page range of 310–.
• The Liesbet Hooghe book has a page range of 40–.

• The article has a mix of en dashes and em dashes used parenthetically and for sharp breaks. Choose only one style, please. Em dashes should never be spaced. En dashes in this manner should have spaces on both sides, not just one. WP:DASH

• Cites should be in ascending numerical order. This needs to be fixed here:
  • "...working with August Meitzen.[16][15]"
  • "...which is at the heart of modern mainstream economics.[86][40]"

• Overlinking. Some terms are overlinked, such as social action which is linked in two successive sentences. Magic is overlinked in the section Sociology of religion.

• Engvar: The article uses British, Oxford and American spellings. The English variation should be decided upon and made homogeneous throughout.

• The Notes section should come after the See also section, per WP:LAYOUT.

• An open WP:3O or WP:RfC is not an indication article stability.

• Quotes that are separated from the rest of the text are credited to people, as they should be. The written source's name and date all run together. Some commas or other punctuation would be good, as in this example: Max Weber, "Objectivity" in Social Science, c.1897

• There is a combination of serial commas used and not used. Decide which comma style is the article's style, and maintain it throughout.

• Can citations that repeat except for page number be reduced in size for second and subsequent appearances? For instance, the following cite appears 14 times in full, identical each time save for the page number:
  • Kenneth Allan; Kenneth D. Allan (2 November 2005). Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. Pine Forge Press. p. 144. ISBN 9781412059279. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)

• Titles of works should not have individual words wikilinked. Please fix any such appearances, including The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism and The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Prose

• No need for the first comma: ...and political economist, who profoundly...  Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't this redundant? ...as one of the three principal architects of modern social science, and has been described as one of the most important thinkers in the social sciences. Seems like one of three architects is already one of the most important thinkers.  Done Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• What is this sentence trying to say?: His methodology was collect "ethical as it was epistemological".
• Fix this sentence: His new interests would lie in more fundamental issues of social sciences and it was is works from this latter period that is of primary interest to modern scholars.
• Fix these two sentences which have poor grammar and are opaque in the extreme. The term "clear as mud" comes to mind: Many scholars has described rationalisation, or more specific, the question of the place of individual freedom in an increasingly rational society, as the main, or one of main themes of Weber's work. This question was situated in the context of understanding the relationship between psychological motivation of actors, cultural values and beliefs (primarily, religion) and the structure of the society (usually determined by the economy).
• This sentence says "both" but then lists three things, and is clunky in the repetition of "organization": By rationalization, Weber understood both individual cost-benefit calculation, the wider, bureaucratic organization of the organizations, and finally, in the more general sense as the opposite of understanding the reality through mystery and magic (disenchantment).
• Why do the words "or in" appear here?: Christian piety towards God was expressed through or in one's secular vocation.
• A connection between Calvin and the concept of "election" is left unexplained. Delete it or explain it.
• In this phrase: heavy "field work" among Protestant sects in America, why is field work in quotes? Why is the word heavy used?
• Delete the German title Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus; no other place in the article is a German title given for one of Weber's works.
• Fix this sentence: Similarly, in societies with different religious, majority of most successful business leader were Protestant as well.
• Cite this quote: "The development of the concept of the calling..." etc.
• Why is Exemplary prophecy given a wikilink (in red) but not the contrasting Weber concept of Ethical prophecy? The two occur together in Weber's work Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. The first is the Buddha type, the second is along the lines of Zoroaster and Mohammed.
• Explain this sentence's incomprehensible second half; is it politics that is understood to be any activity etc, or is it power: Weber wrote that politics derives from power, as is to be understood as any activity in which the state might engage itself in order to influence the relative distribution of force.
• Problem with this sentence: Weber distinguished three ideal types of political leadership, domination, legitimization and authority: Following that sentence, three examples are given of domination, but none of leadership, legitimization or authority.
• The 1909 quote which begins "We know of no scientifically ascertainable ideals"... this quote does not appear to be from Economy and society which was published in 1922. Was it a speech?
• In the Economic calculation section, too much off-topic text is devoted to Mises and Hayek. This article is about Weber, not those guys. Certainly, the Nobel Prize bit must go per WP:COATRACK.
• I don't see the reasoning for the little "now-famous" quote of George Ritzer regarding Weber's sociology types. We have already proven Weber's central position in the field. And the context is absent! I think the bit should go.
• "It was also noted that..." This phrase is weak. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, name the proponent. Same with "In general, Weber's explanations..." and "In addition, it has been pointed out that..."
• What is the connection to Weber in regard to Catholic thinkers appreciative of the School of Salamanca who adhered to the subjective theory of value? This bit does not seem to fit into this biography. Make plain the connection to Weber.

This GA review is in progress—not finished. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I intend to respond to the above, but the rest of this week may be very busy. It is possible I may not be able to respond in full till Monday/Tuesday. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the kind of reviewer who rushes people. :P

Take your time. It's a big list of things to fix. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the GA review is done, and the GAN is on hold for as long as editors need to process the list of notes I made. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed page ranges (script issue).
• I believe there is a script for dash fixing. Can somebody run it? I don't have it.
• Fixed cite order.
• Fixed overlinking to social action, magic seemed fine.
• I am not a native speaker of English, so I am afraid I don't see the mix of styles.

Will keep addressing the other issues soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can easily fix the dashes to be one way or another, but somebody working with the article should determine the style of sentence interruption: spaced en dashes or unspaced emdashes. Similarly, I can easily make the article be American in spelling, less easily be the Oxford or standard British spelling, but the article editors must decide which English variation it should be. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no preference. If nobody else replies, I'd suggest you act on your own (or toss a coin and tell us the results :). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Notes moved.
• I don't think there is an active RfC or 3O, I think that the issue addressed by last has been resolved and the article is stable.
• Fixed quotes.
• Serial commas fixed.
• I am not very fond of shortening references, as it introduces a weird citation style (mixing full and shortened refs), but if you point me to a wiki guide on that, I'll look at its recommendations.
• Fixed overlinking in cited titles.
• His methodology was collect "ethical as it was epistemological" - called, rather then collect, but even so... cannot translate it into plain English. Removed.
• Fixed numerous other sentences.
• Added a link to ethical prophecy, I wonder if Messianic prophecy (currently a redirect to Messianism) and ethical prophecy are one and the same...
• Mises and Hayek. I agree, but as the section below shows, another editor disagreed. That's why we had the 3O. I think we already cut down on that earlier, if you still think there is too much devoted to others, please be bold and either edit the article or comment on it above or below. There is only so much I can do myself without a two sided edit war occurring or such.
• The critical responses lists some general and some specific criticisms. I tweaked the wordings a little to reduce weaseling. I also removed the unref Salamanca sentence. I think with this I went through all of your points, do let me know what remains to be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The repetitive references are not part of WP:GAC but they will be an issue at WP:FAC.

I accept that the article is relatively stable.

I think British spelling, Oxford or Standard, should be implemented. Doing so would be a pain for me because my browser is tuned up for American spelling. Spelling is part of WP:GAC, so this is one last requirement. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! One new problem. The following sentence needs to have some clarification regarding the word "it": Especially important to Weber's work is the neo-Kantian belief that reality is essentially chaotic and incomprehensible, with all rational order deriving from the way in which the human mind focuses its attention on certain aspects of it and organizes the resulting perceptions.

What is meant by "certain aspects of it"? What is being discussed here? Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarified. Why do you think British spelling is better than American? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that America around the 1910s was selectively blind to European influence, but the British were not. I think the British have more right to "owning" a German topic of that era, at least as far as spelling goes. Along the same lines, I think an article about Japan during WWII is more an American spelling topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that logic :) But how can we get the article spellchecked for British English? Is there a script for that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I downloaded the UK spelling dictionary add-on for Firefox, and I am applying it to the article. It's still a pain in the ass because the web browser people have no idea about advanced philosophical terms, and I have to tell the new dictionary that habilitation is spelled right, and other unusual words. My American Firefox add-on dictionary already had these words given to it over time, from years of use. :(

I chose standard UK non-Oxford spelling because the German language uses the 'ess' instead of the 'zed' in words such as rationalization/rationalisation/Rationalisierung.

Let me look it over again one last time for spelling, and I'll check it off as Good Article. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Article is listed now as GA. Congratulations to all who took part! Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Influence on other economists

I'm somewhat puzzled by the qualms expressed by Piotrus, Binksternat, and others to referring in any detail to Weber's influence on other economists in the section about Economics. Weber thought he was primarily an economist and when he was a professor it was always in economics. But economics in Germany in his day focused on economic history and was entirely non-mathematical. Much of that work is now totally forgotten among economists, but Weber himself is an interesting case, because he broke with the other German historicists in very two important respects: by advocating methodological individualism and by accepting marginalism.

For historical reasons, Weber's influence was most obvious and direct on the economists of the so-called "Austrian School," especially Schumpeter, Mises, and Hayek, who, like the neoclassicals, embraced marginalism and methodological individualism, but, unlike the neoclassicals, remained largely non-mathematical. Weber did have a direct influence on one of the fathers of the neoclassical Chicago School, Frank Knight, who cared enough about Weber to translate his General Economic History into English.

None of this is original research, as the secondary references currently in the article should make clear. Nor is the point of mentioning those other economists to "hang a coat" on the Weber hook. It's simply to clarify the relation of Weber to modern economics. This is, I think, a very important issue for the article to treat. It only looks more complicated or controversial than it is because Weber today is read almost exclusively by sociologists and social philosophers, who tend to know little about modern economics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out your Frank Knight bit because it was only about him translating Weber, not about Weber's influence on his thought. If you find reliable sources to cite Knight being influenced by Weber, that information is appropriate for, say, the Legacy section. However, I would ask that this kind of expansion be saved for after the GA process.

A general note: if mainstream thought today puts Weber in the sociology box, then that is the article's main stance. Wikipedia ideally mirrors mainstream thought. We also make note of significant minor viewopoints, observing the proper weight of those viewpoints in relation to the mainstream. There is certainly room in the article to describe Weber's influence in economics. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern and I agree that the focus of the article is rightly on the sociology. I've been concentrating on the economics because that's what I'm most familiar with and interested in. But let me insist that this is not about covering a non-mainstream or minority view. There are many books and articles written on the subject, some of them currently cited, and there's no significant disagreement on any of the points I've included. In other words, what I've added to the section about Economics is not in dispute or controversial. It's only that it comes from the economic and economic history literature, whereas the people who write surveys and encyclopedia articles about Weber tend to be sociologists or philosophers.

In any case, I'm now done with the edits to the Economics section. I think that the references to Knight et al. are better left under economics, where they are most meaningful and instructive, instead of jumbling them under Legacy at the end, but of course that should be decided by consensus.

About the GA process, I think that it's very useful to subject this article to review, but I feel that the nomination might have been premature. There are some substantive issues that still need to be addressed. The Legacy section as currently written, for example, is weak and unclear. Also, I think that someone who knows more of sociology than I should really add a thorough discussion of Weber's work on cities, which I think is in fact extremely important, contrary to what Piotrus said on this talk page some time ago. - Eb.hoop (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

A GA nomination can be concluded successfully even if the article has minor lapses in content. It is the FA nomination which would be halted in the presence of such lapses. Binksternet (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)