# Talk:Life at the Bottom

As requested here I have re-assessed this article to acknowledge recent work done on the article. The next highest class is GA and its criteria can be found here: WP:GA?. Some comments to consider before nominating for GA status:

Please review Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) and especially WP:LEAD#First sentence. I think the currect first sentence can be split into 3 sentences: one defining the book and the other two about the content and background. And I don't think that first citation is necessary. The lead should contain something from every section (Background, Content, Themes, and Reception)
The first sentence should define the subject = it is a book called this written by this guy: Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass is a collection of essays written by Theodore Dalrymple and published in 2001.
 Done, I think. Is it alright now? SilverserenC 16:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Publication is mentioned in the lead but not in the body.
 Fixed. There's a couple of sentences about Dalrymple's troubles with publishing the collection in the body now. SilverserenC 17:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Doctor Theodore Dalrymple spent ten years working..." - review WP:CREDENTIAL, consider replacing the sentence with Theodore Dalrymple spent ten years, between 19xx and 19xx, working as a physician at a hospital and a prison, both located in inner Birmingham. and if the names are provided I would name the hospital and prison, rather than saying 'a hospital'.
 Done. Though there is no name to be found for the hospital and the prison from what I know. Dalrymple purposefully left the names of the facilities out to further protect the anonymity of the patients and prisoners he interviewed. SilverserenC 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"It is pointed out that,..." - just directly say who points it out.
 Fixed. SilverserenC 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the Content section should be expanded. Perhaps one paragraph on Grim Reality and second paragraph on Grimmer Theory.
 I added a paragraph that combines them. But, I don't know if I have enough info from references to make them into individual paragraphs. Options? SilverserenC 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Using citation templates like {{citation}} or {{cite journal}} would make it easier to keep references complete and consistent, especially if multiple would be editing the article.
 Done. All of the citations have been changed to either Cite news, Cite journal, or Cite web format. SilverserenC 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
If you need any further assistance, let me know. --maclean (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Responding to your request for a follow-up, I have made some edits. Specific (and general) comments:
I think the lead still needs further expansion.
 Can you be more specific?
WP:GA? demands "broadness in its coverage", and I think the article covers all the bases except for "Style". For example, the Third Way reference describes Dalrymple's writing as "funny yet depressing, easy to read yet extremely profound...disarmingly simple". I typically put the value-laden opinions (like 'writing is good/bad') in a Reception section/paragraph and the more neutral descriptions (like 'writing is simple/profound') in a Style section/paragraph.
 I've made the style section and it has three reviews in it. Do you think it needs more? The issue is, i'm not sure which of the reviews from the Critical Reception section I should move over, since none of the rest of them seem to be about his prose or style, but about how the book was.
To take the article even further (to WP:FA? demand for "comprehensiveness") I think there is room for additional information that is touched upon but could be expanded. For example, the issue of race was touched upon in several references, Content expansion, and Reception expansion (like explaining why Doctor D. finds it 'extraordinary').
 I've expanded different parts. I hope it meets the amount that you were looking for. Primarily, the last paragraph of the Content section and the Critical Reception section have been expanded.
A had some difficulty following the Themes section. The first three paragraphs seem to be repeating the same message. Would a link to social determinism be appropriate here? is that what the author is describing?
 I expanded the themes section a little and tried to clarify the differences between them. The thing is, the different themes are all related to each other and weave themselves throughout all of the essays. It is the worldview which leads to the deterministic beliefs which then leads to people believing their own actions are not related to themselves. The themes intermingle, you see. SilverserenC 00:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I am unclear on what is meant in this sentence "...in the modern world, poverty and hunger for the poor has been replaced with "emptiness..." - modern in what sense? like 20th century vs. middle ages England? or in the sense of contemporary industrial vs. non-industrial nations? (what is it about 'modern' that is changing the definition of poverty?) and I see poverty as being relative to its context so that it cannot be "replaced" but rather "defined" (or "re-defined") by something - especially if it is being compared to a different (ie. non-modern) context.
 I added a specific time frame for what it's talking about (since the latter half of the 20th century), and then reworded things a bit to explain better. And I put defined as, instead of arises from. I hope that helps. SilverserenC 00:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There should be a citation at the end of quotations, so I have added 2 tags to uncited quotes.
 I've extended the Atlas ref to cover those two quotations. SilverserenC 00:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I did not verify the citations or check many of the references, but I trust a GA reviewer will do this. --maclean (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
All done. I think that should be good enough, right? SilverserenC 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is fine to nominte it for GA status. The GA reviewer may have a few comments which should be addressed, but the article should pass. maclean (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Please note that i'm gone for the month of November, so if you need me to make any corrections, it might take me a while to respond. I'll try my best to work on things as an IP, but there might be a few days in between my responses. Sorry. (Silver seren) 128.194.234.46 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, will take that under advisement. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of November 6, 2010, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Writing quality is pretty good throughout, though I would suggest seeking out some copyeditors who are previously uninvolved with the article, by posting request to WP:GOCE and also to talkpages of relevant WikiProjects.
There are some short paragraphs and one-sentence-long paragraphs and two-sentence-long paragraphs. These should be merged, or expanded upon.
Critical reception sect = works should be italicized.
Critical reception sect = Can redlinks be created as stubs? (not holding up GA, just a thought.)
Missing = categories. something like non-fiction books, 2001 books, etc.
Lede/intro = too short. Per WP:LEAD, please expand it, so it functions as an adequate summary and standalone smaller version encapsulating information from the sects of the entire article.
Missing = See also sect = any related portals? links to other wiki articles?
Missing = External links related to the book. Please remove this link to Google Books. Instead, please add one or two links about the author or to the author's official website(s), and to that of the book description at the website of its publisher.
2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: Can the short paragraphs in the Themes and Style sects, be expanded a bit more with further info from additional WP:RS secondary sources?
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, neutral presentation and wording.
5. Article stability? No major issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history.
6. Images?: One fair use image, appropriate rationale on image page.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

1.1.  Done. I've left notices here and here as a request for copyeditors to review the article. So, this really isn't "done" until they do so, but i'm just labeling it as that for now.
Copyediting completed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
1.2. Since this is essentially referring to 3, see my answer to that one.
1.3.  Done.
1.4. Possibly, but i'd rather not try to go and do that now. Once November is over and I can log in again, i'll definitely see about doing that. And, if it wouldn't be possible, i'll find an overarching article to redirect it to.
1.5.  Done.
1.6.  Done. Okay, the lede has been expanded with info about the themes of the work, the overall feel that reviewers had of the style, and the overall positive and negative aspects of the reviews. It has also been copyedited since I expanded it, so I think we're good there.
1.7.  Done. I have added a link to Spoilt Rotten, the other book of Dalrymple's that had significant importance to the themes of this work as well. I have also put in links to moral relativism, high culture, and political correctness, as they are all themes in the work (unfortunately, themes that aren't really discussed by the reviewers). Dalrymple explains how moral relativism, combined with political correctness, has been caused by intellectuals and how it has affected the people of England and the police of England in the sense that they do not act when a case involves people of other cultures or ethnicity's, as they would be seen as racist or against that culture and working for the "white agenda". Dalrymple also explains how high culture is good for society, but that England in recent years has been focusing on becoming more like the lower class and abandoning high culture because it is seen as "snobbish" and aristocratic.
1.8.  Done. There's now a link to Dalrymple's page on the Manhatten Institute website, along with a link to the Life at the Bottom page there, since that is where he publishes most of his works as essays. Then, there's a link to the Life at the Bottom page on his publisher, Ivan R. Dee's, website. I'm not sure how you want the EL's to be worded, however.
3. I'm not sure. I'll see what I can do, but i've pretty much got every single possible source on the internet, I believe, in this article already. There were two paywall ones I didn't use, since I couldn't access the information. But, other than that, this is it. I'll see if more can be wrung from the current sources.
3.0.  Done. I've expanded the single sentence "paragraph" in the Themes section and added another review to the Style section. I hope that makes them long enough. If not, I guess I can scrounge around for some more.

165.91.173.213 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Will revisit this soon. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review followup
Good job on expansion of lede, copyediting, see also sect, EL sect.
Please add a couple portals to See also sect, using {{Portal box}}.
Short paragraphs, one and two-sentence-long-paragraphs. Sects = Background, Content, Themes = please expand these para, or merge them somewhere.
Critical reception - can this be expanded a bit more with some other sources and a bit more significant discussion from them?
Redlinks = not holding up GA, but can these be created as stubs?
-- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

2.  Done. Books and Literature portals added.
3.  Done. Sections have been moved around to create longer paragraphs and the first paragraph in the Themes section has been expanded.
4.  Done. I have expanded some of the quotations into full sentence and reorganized the section into two paragraphs instead of one for easier reading.
5.  Done. I will deal with making the articles later, so I removed the link to Capitalism magazine and redirected the Carolina Journal link to its parent foundation, the John Locke Foundation. Now there are no more redlinks in the article.
165.91.166.182 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


### GA passed
Thanks for being so responsive to the GA Reviewer recommendations. Most appreciated. Thanks again for that behavior, -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just read this article, not having read the book. I was struck by the complete non-appearance of the words "employment" or "unemployment" and similarly the fact that "work" only appears in relation to the book and Dalrymple himself, never to the persons studied. Does this reflect a similar pattern in the book? If so, did no reviewer comment? If yes to both questions, does this perhaps suggest an unbalanced review population?--SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The book does cover unemployment and the types of jobs that the underclass hold, also how most of the male population just hangs out at bars. But this really wasn't a major point of the book and it was assumed that, when you're talking about poor people, there's going to be unemployment. Because of this, it wasn't commented on by reviewers. They seemed to focus more on the philosophical aspects of the book. I can't control what newspaper writers put in their reviews, I mean, there were multiple themes that none of the reviewers touched upon. You can see those listed in the See Also section. SilverserenC 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't suggesting that you misrepresented the reviews, but I wonder whether there was an imbalance in that those who might have been more critical of the book (such as liberals) didn't review it at all. It's also odd that the book refers to England but found no English publisher, and therefore had no English review. I'm sure you have correctly and fairly used the sources you had. Inevitably it will often be the case that contentious books will attract more attention from those who agree with their viewpoint. --SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The book is extremely critical of England, the welfare state system, and of liberals and the intelligentsia in general, saying that all of the problems that the lower class have are the fault of the upper class. Since that makes up a very, very large proportion of the higher up people in England, you can see how most of the government and academics in England hate the book. That's why he couldn't find an English publisher, because there was pressure from the government on said publishers, causing them to reject him. So, he went to an American publisher. Considering that even the liberals in America can be considered conservative in comparison to England, he had a much easier time finding a publisher here.
That is also why there aren't any reviews from English newspapers, because they essentially try to pretend that Dalrymple and his books don't exist. If they did a review, even an extremely negative one, it would be giving him attention and cause the English citizenry to actually notice him, which would be bad for the government and the academics. There is only one English review that I know about, which is mentioned on Dalrymple's website, but the review in question isn't hosted online, so I can't access it.  Thus, we're stuck with American reviews of the book. There's just nothing else out there. SilverserenC 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You have certainly answered my questions. --SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in this would also probably want to take a look at: Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses. ItCanHappen (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be used for advertisement, you know. SilverserenC 00:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
And that was not an advertisement. ItCanHappen (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the reviews are from America; the book is about England so there must have been some reaction in Britain? Hugo999 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

See the Unemployment section above where someone else asked that question and I answered it. In short, there is only one English review that I know of and it is mentioned on Dalrymple's website, but the review itself is not hosted online, so I can't access it. From what i've researched about this book, the English press and government ignored the book, because to give attention to it (even if it's purely negative attention) would be to give credence to it and cause more English people to actually read it. That is something that the English government doesn't want to happen, since the book is pretty straightforward about the illegality and negligence of what the English government is doing. That's all just my opinion on the matter, however. Feel free to look for English reviews. Do note that the book was published in America, which is why it has American reviews, even if it is about England. SilverserenC 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a few points regarding my recent edits: (1) as I have said, "underclass" is an accepted sociological term. It means something different from "lower class". At least in Britain, "lower class" is not a widely accepted term (and is equated with "working class"). Dalrymple isn't talking about the lower classes and calling them the underclasses; he's talking about a sub-lower-class. (2) I don't see anything in the sources about Dalrymple struggling to find a publisher in Britain, only an assertion that he "had" to have his book published in America and a supposition that people may have wished to silence him. Reading between the lines, as you have done, it is clear the author imagines this is the case but this is deduction rather than anything factual. A much more careful wording is needed in the article that doesn't go beyond what is presented in the source. Given that the book is a collection of his essays for an American magazine, and it uses American English and explains any peculiarly British terms, it would be quite surprising if it was published by a British publisher. (3) I see nothing to justify this "too opinionated" assertion. The person who wrote it (presumably a Wikipedia editor) apparently believes a scientific article is being discussed. --Lo2u (T • C) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Dalrymple conflates the two terms, underclass and lower class, in the book, as do many of the reviewers. Whether they are separate terms or not, he treats them as a similar, if not the same, term. But that's also why I put underclass in quotation marks, because that's not the common method of usage for it, but that's how he is using it, essentially turning it into a new word with a different definition.
2) Reference 10 is pretty specific about the publishing, as is Dalrymple in the foreword of the book. The reference states, "Given the insight offered by Dalrymple's book, it is entirely predictable that the defenders of our debased culture wish to silence or discredit him. One consequence is that Dalrymple had to publish his book at an American house of conservative leaning. It has not been published in Great Britain, although obviously that country should be the one most interested in Dalrymple's findings. Moreover, only one review of Life at the Bottom was published in Britain, a dismissive account in the prestigious Times Literary Supplement that compared Dalrymple to a retired admiral who writes the newspaper about the depravity of British youth because a kid throws a beer can on his lawn.
Dalrymple admits to having been annoyed by that review. For one thing, his analysis does not rest on observing the behavior of a single individual from a distance, but on his experiences as a psychiatrist who has dealt with tens of thousands of patients, of many different ethnic backgrounds, over the course of decades. For another, his analysis does not compare the British underclass to some imaginary, model schoolboy of the nineteenth century. It compares the behavior of the underclass with the behavior of the traditional poor in Africa (where Dalrymple has worked) and in Asia (via discussions with visiting doctors). And then, too, as he told an interviewer, he rejects the implication that he is conservative, except in the sense that he is "aware of the enormous effort it has taken for people to make the discoveries we take for granted," meaning the social and cultural discoveries that make up civilized behavior, as well as scientific and technological ones.
Fortunately, Dalrymple was able to find a publisher in America and readers here are not listening to the sneers of the TLS."
3) Read source 23. There was another reference too that stated he put too much of his personal opinion into the work, rather than presenting the facts as is, but I don't feel like searching through the references for the right one right now. SilverserenC 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1. Dalrymple does not conflate underclass with working class - he takes great care to define the group he is talking about. The definition given is the standard one: a class of people whom he sees as characterised by a tendency to criminality, lack of aspiration, violence etc. The term term "lower-class" is used only four times - twice it refers to regional "working class" accents (adopted by middle class people), and once to poverty. Only one use of the term (a reference to tattooing) could really be said to conflate the two terms. However the argument here is that tattooing is spreading across the classes.
2. Thank you, I'd already seen the source. The book is clearly intended for an American audience, rather than a British one; nor has it been rewritten for American tastes. The source you cite says that the book has not been published in Britain; it implies that it was not possible for the author to find a British publisher (though I suspect this is authorial supposition). What it certainly doesn't imply is that the author first tried to find a British publisher and then went for an American one after that failed. The author seems to be implying that D. intended the book to be published in America, though the publisher he found was not his first choice, and failed to find a secondary publisher in Britain.
3. My objection really is to the word "studies", which is completely inappropriate. D. makes no claim to be publishing "case studies"; his work is anecdotal and polemical. To say that he is accused of sounding angry and opinionated, is one thing. As it stands, the article comes close to accusing him of a biased interpretation of the results of scientific work. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1. I've removed all instances of lower class from the article.
2. I am not budging on this one. Dalrymple has stated that he tried to find a British publisher, but none would take him up on the offer, so he instead found an American publisher. And while the essays may have originally been published in an American magazine, the book as a collection was meant to be published in Britain, as that was what it was focused on and it was meant to affect an audience there.
3. I'm fine with changing the word studies. Maybe to "research"? But the paragraph as a whole is meant to be a summary of the news reviewers opinions. And the only detraction any of them had was that he put too much of his own voice into the book, his "snorting indignation", rather than trying to stay neutral while presenting the results. It is not at all accusing him of being biased, but of saying that it distracts one's attention from the results themselves, when it is those that he should make sure he stays tightly focused on. It's not really a bad criticism at all. I personally loved the book as it was written. SilverserenC 06:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks. I think the important thing is that we treat D. as a journalist rather than the author of a peer-reviewed scientific manual. He wasn't carrying out research when these experiences happened to him; he was doing his job. I'd suggest "experiences" is a better word. Regarding the second point, I'm afraid I just don't see the evidence for the assertion. The source you've cited doesn't say what you want it to say, that Britain was his intended market. You refer to something in the "foreword" in which he explains what happened. The edition I have doesn't have a foreword (is it common for authors to write their own forewords?). There's nothing to this effect in the introduction either and I can't find anything relevant in the Amazon "look inside" edition. Please would you explain where your evidence comes from. What I see is a piece of critical writing in which a writer who claims no contact with the author believes he has found the reason why the book was published a conservative American company; what he does not claim is that the author ever tried to get the book published in Britain. As it stands, this looks like interpolation. --Lo2u (T • C) 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've changed it to say experiences. As for the foreward, I unfortunately do not have my copy of the book with me at the moment, it's back home, which I will be returning to on May 8th. If you'd let me, i'll get back to you on this then (poke me if I don't). If i'm unable to find the info in the book or in any reliable sources at that point, then i'll reword the section to just sya that he published it in America. SilverserenC 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
That's absolutely fine. Many thanks. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Life at the Bottom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828151539/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ajc-portrait_of_the_poor.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_ajc-portrait_of_the_poor.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828151809/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_liberty-living_and_dying.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_liberty-living_and_dying.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212164137/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699608 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699608/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622101119/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_pubweek-life.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_pubweek-life.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612112147/http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1832 to http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=1832
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)