Talk:Petite bourgeoisie

message: ::Moved from the Village Pump
:Would someone please help me to move Petit bourgeoisie to Petite bourgeoisie and set up a redirect from the old name to the new one? I tried to move the page, but something went wrong. Shorne 20:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. ✏ Sverdrup 21:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Shorne 21:36, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Petit bourgeoisie]]

message: The literature knows two types of petit bourgeois. 
One is the good natured person. This like superficial sociability. Thea are in clubs and have a strong orientation by family.
The malicious kind of p.b. have following character: spitefulness, gossip, and slander, know-it-all and bumptious manner.
They see the world in "black and white" and they are against minorities.
Adorno called them the "authoritariam person".  --Fackel 17:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two types

message: The table in this article appears to conflict with the definition in bourgeoisie. That article indicates bourgeoisie refers to middle class, although it later gives a geographically limited alternative reference to upper class. So which is it?
MaxwellPerkins 05:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In feudal society, at least in France, bourgeoisie were the residents of a town (bourg). In capitalist societies, they are the middle class. In Marxist parlance, they are the owners of the means of production as private property. That certainly did not make them upper class; see all the snide remarks in English literature (Jane Austen, say, or Edith Wharton), accompanied with a look down the nose, at people who made their money in "trade." In terms of the Three Estates (Estates of the Realm), they are commoners. So which is it? MaxwellPerkins (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts with definition of bourgeoisie 

message: All the references were removed. Is there a reason for that? Ninguém (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the reason is that Wikipedia articles should contain factual matter (i.e. 'article meat' with citations where relevant) and pretty much nothing else. The references for this article is more like a "reading list", as in "if you want to know more about this topic, on which we have written very little, these are some books you can read". That can be a problem from two angles: it's not the standard for Wikipedia to include reading lists, and, there's no way for anyone to know if these books are good or relevant books and hence should be "proposed" to the reader without actually reading all of them. I'm not going to delete them though, but it would be much better if the content could be incorporated into the article instead of just being listed as recommended reading.158.143.133.35 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "Petite bourgeoisie" redirects here, but it should be the primary article. ("Petit" is the masculine adjective in French, which is incorrect.) But I don't know how to move an entire article like that.
:Hi, I agree. I just did the correction. — Womtelo (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be moved to the proper spelling 

message: Currently the opening reads as follows: "Petite bourgeoisie (literally small bourgeoisie)..." 
Given that the core noun in this phrase (bourgeoisie) is both jargon and a loanword, I don't feel that translating only the 'small' adjective removes much of the fog surrounding the phrase. Could we find a better translation for the term? BananaBork (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better translation in lead? 

message: The entire [] section of this page, including the Modern-day examples list, contains no citations. Particularly in the list of examples, it's unclear where they come from.
--Phoenix Kahlo (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition contains no citations 

message: The definition is quite scanty, and doesn't really explain what being able to "buy the labor of others" actually means, or why doing so while also "typically work alongside their employees" is significant enough to constitute a distinct class.  The examples also don't seem very informative.  Why is a lawyer in a small partnership petite bourgeoisie, but not (presumably) one in a large partnership, or working independently?  We then get a paragraph blaming the petite bourgeoisie for fascism, but which (IMO) doesn't give a convincing argument (particularly the claim that it is due to businesses being run by sexually-repressed patriarchal families).  It also talks about the Petite bourgeoisie and the middle class, as though they are separate things. And then finally, the bulk of the article isn't actually about the petite bourgeoisie per se, but about how they are portrayed in literature, which is probably significant enough a subject to cover, but shouldn't be the majority of the article. Iapetus (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article doesn't really explain what the Petite bourgeoisie ''are'', or why they are significant 

message: In other articles that involves a non-european name, wikipedia refuses to use the native name. Rama bridge, or Turkiye are examples. The commonly cited excuse is that this is an English wiki. Why is the French name being used in this case? Why isn't the English name being used? I'm open to believe there is a good reason but from my current point of view this looks like wiki has some inherent bias against non-europeans. 57.135.144.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the French name being used