Talk:Elite
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elite article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Global elite page were merged into Elite. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Computer game
[edit]The computer game should be an exception, the Elite (sociology) article should be moved here, and this article moved to Elite (computer game). I will do it if noone raise serious resons as to why I shouldn't soon enough. Nixdorf 22:21 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Now I've done it. All related links are changed too. Nixdorf
- The link I found in Elite appeared to point to something totally irrelevant; I took the liberty of removing it and leaving a stub. mattabat 15:54 5 Feb 2006 AEDST
How about relating this article with l33t? very common amoung gamers
disorganized
[edit]elite just means the best or the top group. there is no need to list a definition for every category in which elite can be applied. it needs to be rewritten. Rds865 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, there are fundamental differences between what is meant by the word "elite" in the military sense and in the societal sense. The elite of the military in the societal sense are not elite units but the officer corps. -Sensemaker
- I think Rds865 makes a point. Most of this content is Original Research or Unverified Claims. Much of the content in each of these sections are overlapping. I've done a bit of cleanup, but for example, 'social elite' talked about wealth, 'financial elite' contained what I presumed was vandalism about Manhattan, 'Business elite' talks about genetic superiority. Without making some nonintuitive verifiable claims, many of the sections are worthless. Elite is the best in a group. Financial elite is the best in finance, social elite is the best in society, and so on. It's just a bunch of "no duh". -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- the best in society is called "high society", not "social elite". You should be editing that page, not this one. Everything here still belongs. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- the "best" in society are not called "high society". There is no single description of the best society, and there's no real reason to assume it overlaps with the somewhat subjective term "high society". 137.222.120.172 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Suggestion
[edit]The article focuses too much on American History, placing usual White Anglo Saxons as one of the main worries of the article. The sources are as well mainly reliant on this limited conception, is not wrong and I'm not asking to delete anything on the article, whose cohesion and writing are well done and comply with quality Wikipedia standards, but rather to add more information from an universal and historical perspective. The average reader may receive and interpret biased information associating American societal structures with, for example, whether an elitist was "white, saxon, or protestant". This may happen, because it is the most common case amongst the American idiosincrasy. As a suggestion, it may be good to contextualise, giving examples of elitism in multiple ethnics, states and periods of history, doing a comprehensive and complete explanation about the phenomena. In general the article feels voidless and it feels like something an average teacher of American History may tell you. 186.121.5.35 (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)