Talk:Social class in the United States: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:31, 16 December 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social class in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Social class in the United States has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 17, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Linkspam?

I have twice reverted this edit, which contains what I believe to be linkspam. In order to avoid 3RR, I'm stepping aside, and I'm asking y'all to evaluate whether it is a legitimate external link or not. Shalom ^Hello 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. The link has no business in the external links section on this article. Considering that he/she has been warned multiple times and the uncivil remakrs I just found in his/her contributions history, I have blocked the IP. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article candidate 2007-07-06

First off, I would like to congratulate the editors of this article for the persistent quality of work here. For such a controversial topic, this is a very neutral article, and after reading over the article twice, I really do feel that it is worthy of GA status. However, there are a few cases of vague terms and redundancies that will need to be corrected in order to get the article to FA status. Also additional wikilinking should be applied where necessary. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

Thank you! Signature^brendel 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Did you read this? Class models, with providing more or less congruent theories on the socio-economic stratification of American have been developed by social scientists. I am not even sure what it means. Rumiton 11:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that sociologists have devised class models that are similar to one another. It means, that even though the American class system remains ambigously defined, social scientists have developed some sort of quasi-defacto consensus on certain theories. If you can find a better way to phrase this statament, I'm all ears. Regards, Signature^brendel 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I see what is meant. I was thrown by the redundant "with" and "providing," and also because the word "life" or "society" might be missing after the adjective "American." The passive voice is a ittle confusing, too. I am sorry, I know I am pedantic, all those people who have told me so can't be wrong. How about...

Social scientists have developed class models on the socio-economic stratification of American society which give rise to more or less congruent theories.

Or perhaps Social scientists have developed class models on the socio-economic stratification of American society, USING more or less congruent theories. From the original, I am really not sure which came first, the theory or the class model. Thanks for your patience. Rumiton 12:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually its thories that give rise to models who in turn give rise to models. The current models are the result of old models being updated and new theories having been made. I replaced the sentence with Social scientists have developed class models on the socio-economic stratification of American society which feature more or less congruent theories. I think it is the most accurate statement I can make. Thanks for your input and improving the article. Signature^brendel 18:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your open and helpful response. Wikipedia at its best, I think. Rumiton 10:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janitor?!

Is a computer game graphic if a janitor really necessary?

I have not contributed to the page but have been keeping up with the changes in reading it. I don't like the graphic so much. --Kenneth M Burke 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed the graphic. Thanks for the feedback. Signature^brendel 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for other janitors. You know, there was a news story about an elementary school janitor in the United States. The students liked him a lot and raised money to send him on a vacation to San Francisco. Maybe a photo? I dunno. --Kenneth M Burke 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles about Joe Venable, the janitor kids love. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] --Kenneth M Burke 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Recent Survey

says that advanced education is correlated with affluence, but 'job outlook' is not. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ::::Some articles about Joe Venable, the janitor kids love. [http://www.dpsnc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3895&Itemid=1111],  [http://www.dpsnc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3886&Itemid=], [http://www.dpsnc.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3874&Itemid=1367], [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/19/cnr.03.html], [http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1588075/?d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=3] --[[User:Kenneth M Burke|Kenneth M Burke]] 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
+== A Recent Survey ==
+[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=361 says that] advanced education is correlated with affluence, but 'job outlook' is not. [[Special:Contributions/24.32.208.58|24.32.208.58]] ([[User talk:24.32.208.58|talk]]) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)