Talk:Snob

message: This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Snob.  The consensus was to keep it.  dbenbenn | talk 05:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't like the subject. --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In their defense, the current treatment is actually a terribly poor treatment of classism, written as though the English had invented it, developed it, and foisted it upon all the other peoples of the world. 'Snob' is a Britishism and the article (if it shouldn't just be a wiktionary entry) deserves a treatment of the development of the concept of snob from its origin as a "cobbler" to its present sense, but all the dreck about classism (especially the ahistorical bits) should be moved to another article. — LlywelynII 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for Deletion: Concensus Keep 

message: The straw hat illustration, with the caption "American style straw hat. Complex social rules can determine when an occasion is sufficiently informal so that a man may correctly wear this hat." I deleted this, which confuses snobbery with etiquette. Someone may want to insert the image there. --Wetman 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Hat Illustration

message: There's no section on inverted snobbery - surely a serious omission.--80.6.118.162 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...your assignment, should you care to accept it..." --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I hadn't spoken up. Now we've got: "Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites, effectively the opposite of snobbery." How is this? Suddenly a repulsion has been substituted for an attraction. This is not what's at work, is it? If society is not so much "up-down" now, as it is "in-out" or "cool-uncool", only the object of imitation has changed. Not repulsion replacing attraction. I suppose this would count as "original". But Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites' strikes me as a highly original substitution of repulsion for attraction... --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inverted snobbery" 

message: Surely there is no reason for Smug to redirect to snobbery, they are after all completely different things.
:Just fix the redirect at Smug, which is an adjective; it should be deleted altogether. --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smug

message: The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has 'inverted snobbery' but there's no mention of 'reverse snobbery' which is the title of the Wiki entry. Stephen A 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse Snobbery?

message: How can they be includedd in reverse snobbery? With their 40 inch rims, sparkly silver bling and gold teef...♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hip Hop 

message: Should the categorizing computer program be listed? : http://www.allisons.org/ll/MML/Notes/SNOB/ Kelly.terry.jones (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not on this page (as it is a separate topic), but if you think that the program is notable, then feel free to create a new page for it. --Neil (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer program 

message: The sentence:
:"Snobbery surfaced more strongly as the structure of the society changed, and the bourgeoisie had the possibility to imitate aristocracy. Snobbery appears when elements of culture are perceived as belonging to an aristocracy or elite, and some people (the snobs) feel that the mere adoption of the fashion and tastes of the elite or aristocracy is sufficient to include someone in the elites, upper classes or aristocracy."
doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't snobs believe that mere adoption of fashion and tastes is insufficient?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.101.30 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be insufficient? 

message: The general tone of this article seems to be 'inflammatory', or maybe an attack on snobbery in general. Although I am not entirely sure on what this issue would be considered under Wikipedia policy, or indeed, anything at all, I do believe this fails to have a neutral point of view. Particularly egregious are some of the links in the "See Here" section, which can be seen as outright offensive. If anything, it would be nice to have an more experienced editor go through this article, and give their opinion on it. If I am incorrect in my position, feel free to remove the NPOV tag. Alice Margatroid (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we don't need to worry about the lack of neutrality, considering that few people will self-identify as a snob. It's generally an offensive label put on others, so I think this isn't an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltm mn (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page seems offensive 

message: That's misleading and not really defining. A snob can of course believe so, but far more people do believe this tacitly without being actual snobs. Snobs may actually believe something to the contrary. Not that social status or personal status determines worthiness, but that one can somehow gain social status by deceiving others with status symbols and denigrating those perceived to have lower status. --41.145.159.218 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A snob is a person who believes there is a correlation between social status and human worth." 

message: I don't understand the second sentence: "The term also refers to a person who judges, stigmatizes others and believes that some people are inherently inferior to others result from the perception of opinions, values, intellect, creativity, talent, wealth, occupation, education, ancestry, ethnicity, relationship, power, religion, physical strength, class, taste, hobby, prestige, beauty, nationality, and fame." It's uncited so I will remove it if no-one clarifies it.--greenrd (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like they were trying to get a point across regarding how the word snob may be defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. <ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob/ref>  Under the "snob for English Language Learners" it refers closer to what was written in this sentence. I'd recommend re-writing it though and possibly changing the sentence to read "Snob also refers to a person who feels superiority over those from lower social classes, education levels, or other social areas." and then cite it with the definition of the actual word. Azlizc (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible second sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Snob. 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/20050514075848/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Reverse snobbery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  07:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reverse snobbery" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Inverted snob and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inverted snob" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: What historical basis is there for claiming that the ancient Spartans practised a 19th-century concept in the 5th century BC. Were they time travellers? 
Secondary point: why does this article not mention W. M. Thackeray, his Book of Snobs, and his literal invention of the term 'snob' as used in its present form? StrangeBanana (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spartan snobs?