Talk:Middle class

message: Unless there are references to support it I believe the "Geographic Terms" section needs to go. It is not true that
* The terms "Middle America" or "Middle England" were coined to associate these geographic areas with the Middle Class.
* People generally make this association. Although some people may make this association, that interpretation is not widespread enough to make such sweeping statements (and certainly not enough to justify a whole section).
* These regions of their respective nations are more Middle Class than other sections.
The references that are provided in this section appear to support specific statements but not the overall thesis of the section. From what I have read it is true that "Middle Australia" is commonly used to refer to Middle Class Australia but then "Middle Australia" is not actually a geographic term. Similarly occasionally some authors may use "Middle America" to refer to the Middle Class United States but then they are not using it as a geographic term. Arguing that this justifies the section is an equivocation (a type of logical fallacy).
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal: Geographic terms 

message: "Marxism defines social classes..."
It lacks clarity and intellectual integrity to refer to particular or frequent lines of thought coming out of a long-lasting, diverse school of though as all-inclusive of all writers of the tradition. Not all Marxists think the same, by any stretch of imagination or rhetoric. This section must be clear who defines one thing or another in this or that manner.
If no one is able or willing to be specific, in the text, as to who wrote such things, then in the very least the language must be altered - a person, a single work with multiple authors, even an organization, can define a thing, but a broad, incohesive school of thought cannot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunmwilson1 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in 'Marxism and the middle class.' 

message: :The professional class are a middle class group of professionals who are distinguished from other social groups by training and education (typically business qualifications and university degrees).  Examples of such professions include academics, architects, engineers, lawyers, accountants, physicians, dentists, pharmacists, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, psychologists, sociologists, some non-corporate business-owners, economists, political scientists and other so-called "hard" scientists . Persons of this group tend to have incomes above the average for their country.  
#Nadbank page doesn't exist
#US BL doesn't mention class
#No page ref (also, its not an academic work on class)
As all citations fail cite-check, moved to Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional class

message: This article is not as well structured and sourced as it deserves to be, and it needs development. It's a major topic, which averages over 700 views a day, so should be (and could be) better than it currently is. Indeed, the organisation of articles about social class in general need sorting out as there is a fair bit of duplication, dicdef and personal opinion scattered around these articles - a number could be merged. I'm prepared to work on this for a bit to help start it on the right track - 
I have done some political and social studies so have a loose grasp of some of the concepts, and know a few of the major authors to use for authoritative cites - but I am not an expert, so I may get things wrong. Any help in shaping the article would be much appreciated. SilkTork *YES! 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: Thats the most notable thing from my perspective that needs to be pointed out. Most of those who are deemed middle class in US would only meet the criteria (earnings/social standing) of being working class if they lived in the UK. Also the middle class in UK are seen as being posh, hence many people prefer to term themselves as working class.
:--Andymcgrath (talk) 08:56, 05 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The difference what constitutes Middle class in UK to US

message: In the United Stated of America the term "middle class" is used by politicians to avoid saying "working class" or "working poor".  There are fewer and fewer in the "middle" in the USA.  The gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is getting greater.  There term "middle class" is insignificant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.206.229 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "middle class" is a false term in the USA 

message: The first paragraph of this section has problems:
The term "middle class" is first attested in James Bradshaw's 1745 pamphlet Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France.[1][2] The term has had several, sometimes contradictory, meanings.
So far so good.
It was once defined by exception as an intermediate social class between the nobility and the peasantry of Europe.[by whom?]
I've actually seen this in several sources, including Merriam-Webster's unabridged. However, it's not correct. The peasantry included smallholders and millers, some of whom were quite wealthy. Conversely, many countries (notably Hungary and Poland) had large numbers of poor nobles. In England, armigerous gentry were technically untitled nobility, and not necessarily well-off.
While the nobility owned the countryside, and the peasantry worked the countryside, a new bourgeoisie (literally "town-dwellers") arose around mercantile functions in the city.
The nobility typically about owned 30 - 60 % of the countryside, depending on which country and period we're talking about. The rest was owned by the church and by freeholders. Also, the bourgeoisie were not new, just the word. The bourgeoisie had been around since the days of Charlemagne.
Another definition equated the middle class to the original meaning of capitalist: someone with so much capital that they could rival nobles. By this definition, only millionaires and billionaires are middle class in modern times.
Marx, a German, seems to have defined the French word bourgeoisie this way, but that was not how middle class was understood in any English-speaking part of the world.
In fact, to be a capital-owning millionaire was the essential criterion of the middle class in the industrial revolution.
This is nonsense. Try doing a search on Google books for the term "middle class" filtering for the years 1760 to 1850, and you will see that this is not how the term was used. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and evolution of the term 

message: The whole descrpition (mostly inside the US middle class) is totally biased to right politics.
While it may be so that America is an right nation, it might be interesting to let it clear that the definition provided is not only about US middle class, but also how middle class is described by far right. Things like "authoritative parents" should not exist in there.
Since I personally don't like right politics, it ends up that I would not like to be that someone described in such middle class. Alas, you can be a perfectly healthy middle class member without the right symbolism.
Just saying ... anyone with better knowledge of left/right wing politics, and how to describe it in a better unbiased way, should be able to come up with a better description.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.204.26 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically biased towards right wing politics 

message: I think this whole section should be deleted. It employs a very specific theoretical framework and pre-supposes that its writer's narrow, principally American definition of the middle class applies to the more amorphous global definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.40.2 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears I was being blind when I wrote that comment just underneath this bit. It seems I repeated what you had already mentioned. I did actually alter the section to make sure it was somewhat more clear that it was merely opinion. I actually would not care if it was deleted anyway, to be honest. At least I made it a little more wiki-like.--Hypernator (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social reproduction of the middle class" 

message: That whole section is basically written as if it is "matter of fact" but it is just opinion based on a book. Also the references 14 and 16 are the same thing. I suggest it just be removed completely if the writer cannot be bothered to state that: "In the opinion of Doob, Christopher B..." 
Someone saying something in a book does not make it some kind of fact. It is technically their interpretation based on supposed evidence.  This applies just as much to a philosophical opinion as it does science. Someone's opinion is not a piece of evidence, it is simply their point of view on the subject - an interpretation.
I would be inclined to suggest that it looks like complete nonsense anyway. To suggest that an entire group of people, labelled with an extremely vague title, all do a particular thing is pretty strange (bordering on insanity). Middle class is less vague in the UK because it is defined by the income/ financial status/ net worth of the person. In other words lower, middle and upper class tax bands. I am not sure how it is done in USA but I would imagine it is not a clearly defined category. I can see immediately that the section in question is very odd though, regardless.Hypernator (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Social reproduction of the middle class" part is written like a factual article but is opinion.  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middle class. 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/20071030122805/http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22627_20070320.pdf to http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/RS22627_20070320.pdf
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) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The power and class section quotes a line from The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret, that begins, "In 2020, the labor force numbered 152.7 million people..." Since the book was published in 2012 and it's not even 2020 yet, I assume that was a typo meant to say 2002. I tried to go to the source to verify but I don't have access to the full text. If someone with full access wants to verify, that would be nice.
Also the entire Power and Class section is based on a single source. It seems like a good one but some effort should be made to find more info. Plasteredpegasus (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Misquote in Power and Class 

message: Why is this being allowed to fly? It has clearly been written by someone viewing the world through a Marxist lens.
The entire article is littered with the political phrases of Marxism, such as breaking down society into "the bourgeoisie" and "the proletariat" with mentions of a "ruling class".
The article ought to lead with a breakdown of definitions by region (because obviously they differ in the US, UK, and others) and MAYBE have a small section further down discussing Marx's thoughts on the subject.
82.9.121.234 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article written by a Marxist 

message: Terminology section contains following statement:
:"In medieval European feudal society (8th–12th centuries), a "middle class" composed primarily of peasants who formed a new "bourgeoisie" based on the success of their mercantile ventures, eventually overthrew the ruling monarchists of their society and ultimately led to the rise of capitalist societies."
This statement ignores the 3 Estates of Feudalism (which has well been well-attested by historians). For some reason, the editor has considered limiting Feudal society to the 8th-12th centuries; which is contrary to most accepted definitions of between 9th-15th centuries (see Feudalism) Since the statement is unsourced, there is no way of understanding the meaning of the sentence. This entire section should be revised in a meaningful way. 
--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology section: Lack of Factual Accuracy 

message: The first paragraph should be greatly expanded upon. As currently written, this section is focused solely on a Marxist interpretation.
--AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and evolution of the term section: NPOV issue 

message: Looking at the first two paragraphs, I feel that there may be an issue with maintaining a neutral POV. According to MOS:LEAD, the special emphasis should be placed on having a WP:NPOV, being concise, and proper citations. These two paragraphs fail on all of those fronts. 
Bold claims are made with no citations, such as “ Modern social theorists—and especially economists—have defined and re-defined the term ‘middle class’ in order to serve their particular social or political ends.” No matter where this was, such a bold claim should require a citation. But the fact that it’s in the very first paragraph adds even more reason to remove it. 
The second paragraph also uses terminology that’s far too specific to Marxian theory, such as “petite-bourgeoisie” and again lacks citations for all of its claims.
Ideally, it would be better to clean up these paragraphs than flat-out remove them. However, I don’t have the necessary expertise to properly fix the issues myself, so if there’s no objections to the removal of these paragraphs, I will remove them.
--Captainsnacc (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the lead does not  require any cites. It summarizes point made in the article. I don't think it's biased. Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of NPOV in first two paragraphs 

message: Just definition 119.160.68.180 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of middle class 

message: this has been mentioned before on this page (multiple times), but this article really needs to differentiate clearly between the UK usage of the term and the more typical US/international use.
Also, why is the main image of the article about wealth instead of income, when the article at multiple points defines the middle class as those with enough income to buy non-essential goods?
--jonas (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK usage, article image 

message: The First paragraph describes a middle class as existant, while there are no sources it is even an actual thing. There is even research to be found (on page 1 of a simple google search) that this may be a faulty conclusion:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083379 94.110.113.219 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true-- the citated article says the middle class really existed.  Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely Biased