Talk:Social class in the United States/Archive 2

message: Since when are farmworkers a social class. Occupation is one of the defining features of class but I have never read or heard about farmworkers being a social class by themselves. Could anyone provide a reference for this, otherwise I'll delete it. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since peasants became a part of society. Fred Bauder 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes pesants were a social class, but modern farmworkers arn't. Then we should say pesants not farmworkers. Signaturebrendel 03:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say modern farmworkers are not a social class. What authority is there for such a position? Fred Bauder 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The authors who include them under the label of blue-collar working class. Besides justification is not needed to remove unsourced material. Justification is needed to keep or add material on this page. So, the qeustion is what authority is there to back up presenting farm workers as their own social class.Signaturebrendel 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Farmworkers

message: Please everyone, provide sources. All paragraph should have a citation-this is a controversial subject matter and guessing from statements such as "The working class constitutes 70% of the American population," extremely prone to POV pushing. This article is not an outlet for your or my view on class-we need to list all the ideologies mentioned in reputable sources so please don't forget citations. Thanks everyone. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there are three sections left with no refs. I have added the reference tags so users are aware that it is just those parts that arn't references; thus reassuring them that the first several sections are good places for research. I'll see when I get around to writing about the Middle class squeeze again. Also, do we need a section for that here. I already wrote about it on my article about the American middle class. Nonetheless I'm going to re-write it with sources when I find the energy. Just to keep you posted ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: :"Yet another interesting parallel between the industrial economy and the modern economy is that working class employes, unlike professionals, are not paid to think but rather complete tasks assigned by a more educated manager with a better understanding of the tasks at hand and their complexities."
I was once an electronics technician. I don't recall ever having a supervisor who understood the work I was doing. Their job was customer relations and making sure all the work got done in a timely manner. Organizational work. Fred Bauder 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what-that sentence was completely misleading. You mis-read it and they way I phrased that sentence I don't blame you. I replaced it-Sorry. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A questionable statement

message: Hi, I am considering to nominate this article for GA. In order to do this I will need to remove uncited info; thus I will re-write the middle class squeeze section. My problem is the agriculture section; no sources are cited and the section either needs to go or be referenced for this article to gain GA status. (Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh) I will try and do some research but am pretty busy in real life. So, would the author of this section please add citations (we just need one)- Thx in advance.  Please let me know if you have any other suggestions as to improvments we should add before going to nominate this article for GA status. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Rjensen re-wrote the agriculture section with references, so that problem is fixed. I'll do the re-write of the "middle class squeeze section" in the next two days. The only section still lacking refs is the "Class acedency section" (I forgot to mention this one above). Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ready for GA?

message: I just edited the article, adding a more pronounced mention of the nominal appraoch to social class. I did, however, forget to log in and thus conducted the edits under the IP 71.149.250.204. Just to let everyone know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note

message: I can't speak to the general topic discussion here, but the language in much of the article is confusing and distracting (overly comma-dependent; many chunky, pointless clauses). Also, there are many spelling errors and typos throughout the article. I took a whack at cleaning up the first few Ps and will be back to do a bit more later. Eve Adams 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thank you for doing so. The comme-dependent sentence structures are largely the result of the subject matter's complexity. In order to be correct many variables need to mentioned in one sentence. Anyways, I appreciate your effort! Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar/conventions 

message: In the article, occupational latter changed to occupational ladder.  - Kevinskogg 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thank you for doing so. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling correction

message: In Upper Class Section:
Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherit privilege
I'm pretty sure that either "inherited" or "inherent" was intended, but not knowing which, I hesitate to edit it myself.
:Inherited is meant. Sorry-I'm going to run a spell check using Word '03 on this article now. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling/Usage error