Talk:High society

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High society article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 11 December 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from High society (social class) to High society. The result of the discussion was moved.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austindmorales.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive, needs copyedit

The first two sentences heavily repeat each other. The second is unfootnoted, so one has to check the ref cited in order to merge them. Unfortunately I cannot do it myself due to my limited command of English and of high society. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fixed.~~ Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC) (Reverted by BMK. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Your change was not an improvement, so I have reverted it. If another editor disagrees, it should be discussed here. BMK (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is beyound 3RR. And my edit was an improvement compared to chaotic previous text. I notified the original contributor to hear what they have to say. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High society (social class) → High society – clearly this is a primary topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly , High society → High society (disambiguation), because the rest in the dab page are various titles and proper names. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOTDICT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The current high society (social class) article is a WP:DICDEF with some OR-ish synth thrown in because high society is simply not an important encyclopedic term. The 1956 film alone is more important. — AjaxSmack 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BMK (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But article is by no means a dicdef, just a stub which needs expansion. BMK (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has more problems than just being a stub. High society is not an encyclopedic term or category. Cf. upper class which is. — AjaxSmack 22:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well despite being in conflict with BMK, I agree with him here the concept is both notable and encyclopedic. I only object strongly to the sloppiness how the article was maintained. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I did consider merging it to "Upper class," but after some reading I see these are distinct concepts, especially in modern times. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the first thing that came to my mind after reading the name was the song. Greg Kaye 06:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Invalid footnotes

Susman, Tina. "Trial shines a spotlight on New York's high society", Los Angeles Times (September 16, 2009)
- The reference in this footnote says not a single word on the topic and creates an illusion of support of the footnoted sentence, which it is obviously not. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness gracious golly gee whiz you are annoying. It's an example of usage of the term, which establishes its existence. It also has valid information about the current state of high society in NYC. BMK (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not how wikipedia references work. References, especially to the definition are to substantiate the definition'. This one is a fake reference, because in does not substantiate the claim of the sentence it is attached to. At best, "establishing the existence" is a piece of original research, because it is your conclusion that such thing exists, derived from the article title. Reading newspaper titles, you may "establish the existence" of really weird things. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is excellent-- scholars in fact rely heavily on court cases in criminal trials to get this kind of information. The article also substantiates points like: " In Astor's case, those millions often went to supporting institutions geared toward improving life for less-fortunate New Yorkers -- libraries, universities, hospitals, public gardens and conservation groups among them." So in fact the article actually does talk about behavior of high society in the 21st century. Rjensen (talk) 15:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case 2

Looking thru the article history, I see that the above ref and the other one:

High Society: The History of America's Upper Class, by Nick Foulkes, Assouline, October 1, 2008.

were inserted onto on a chaotic text in a response to the {cn} tag. I highly suspect that this one, just as the other one, was thrown in just to shrug off the citation request for the term, and it simply "establishes its existence". Therefore according to wikipedia rule, I challenge the editors to provide the quotation form these references which substantiate the definition, which I find dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a standard history, which substantiates the main points and is where readers should go for further information. The critic does not specify why he finds the definition dubious. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Changes

Hello wikipedians for a class I have to edit articles and I was thinking of working on this article, here are some proposed citations that I would use and also an outline of what information I'd like to add.

Vicdan, Handan, and A. Fuat Fırat. "Evolving Desire To Experience The Social ‘Other’: Insights From The High-Society Bazaar." Journal Of Consumer Culture 15.2 (2015): 248-276. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Feb. 2016

Starr, Roger. "'Old money': the Making of America's Upper Class." Commentary 86.2 (1988): 71+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Riley, Naomi Schaefer. "The left's guide to the class divide: a new book on the split between rich and poor America has found favor among liberals who resist the solution." Commentary 139.5 (2015): 36+. Academic OneFile. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Armbrust, Shawn. "When money isn't enough: the case for holistic compensation of the wrongfully convicted." American Criminal Law Review Winter 2003: 157+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

For this article, I wanted to add more information. I wanted to add information on cases where members of high society have received better treatment than those from lower society. I also wanted to create a portion that focuses on what high society is made up of and how it affects America, in the sense that they are big decision makers and have more say in what happens in the world naturally through higher rank. I also wanted to focuses on this history of the high society in America and where it rests today. Much of the old money that was made in America has carried generations today and allows them to continue to be in high society. I want to ad facts about some examples of high society families that have roots deep in American past. I also wanted to look and add information that focuses on what it means socially to be part of high society, how their culture is and how they carry themselves. How high society interacts and connects to lower society and what role they play in lower societies life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austindmorales (talk • contribs) 04:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Austindmorales: Nicely done, Austin. I think you're off to a great start. One reading that you should consider taking a look at is Veblen's book Theory of the Leisure Class. Look up the book and then look up who has talked about it. One thing he discusses is this thing called "conspicuous consumption." Could be useful to you. Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the project, and I hope you get an "A" -- in the old days the upper-class got a "gentleman's C" for lightweight effort :) . The article by Armbrust does not seem to fit into well with high society, , so I would leave it out. Rjensen (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge With Socialite

After deep research in trying to identify high society in modern times and other parts of the world. I think it would be safe to not merge this article with Socialite. A socialite can still exist today. But high society no longer exists. It is a very specific group of people from a specific time in America. When defining high society it only pertains to that group and no one else. It can be linked to other groups that exist today, like the upper class from old money and other parts of New York where the upper class is an elite group but it is not as profound as it once was like in the 1930's. Austindmorales (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update, March 31, 2016

I'm very impressed with the work you've done, Austin. Great work. Moving forward, I think that you need to take the time to look at sources from the world of sociology. I mentioned Veblen before, and I think it's imperative that you include him here. You also need to look at the work of Shamus Kahn and also work on the elites in sociology (C Wright Mills, for instance). You must include more sociology citations for the final draft. Maybe consider having a section on the sociology of high society or sociology of elites?

Also: when referencing Washington, DC, it's "capitol," not "capital."

Take a look at the "Evaluating Wikipedia" handout that I sent in a previous email to see about revising your page for consistency in the Wikipedia style. Your article still kind of reads like an essay, and it is important to have it read more like an encyclopedia. Best of luck. @Austindmorales: Alfgarciamora (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move social class to base name and to move dab page to High Society. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:BROAD and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The other subjects derive from this one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as primary by long-term significance. WP:DIFFCAPS would also support this move, as all other entries on the DAB page capitalize the S in "Society". ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many other "high society" terms to disambiguate from. Even if broad, unconvinced this is primary topic. It shouldn't displace disambiguation page. Walrasiad (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds that literally every other topic on this page besides social class is at a capitalized "High Society", so none of them can compete for primacy at the lowercase title; however, move the disambiguation page to High Society. BD2412 T 04:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a good idea, I would suggest making High Society a redirect to this article and make High Society (disambiguation) the disamb page. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If someone is capitalizing its unlikely the social class would be intended per WP:DIFFCAPS like Friendly Fire and will be the 1st entry for those that do want it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The second move should apparently be to High society (disambiguation), so I fixed the proposal accordingly. Support first move, prefer High Society (disambiguation) for the second; not a fan of DIFFCAPS, particularly when the other item is a dab page. No such user (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The generic meaning is likely primary by long-term significance but not by usage[[1]]. The DAB page should probably go to High Society per WP:DABNAME as no primary topic for the title case version per WP:DIFFCAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support first per WP:DIFFCAPS. The second should be moved to High Society as the all terms being disambiguated other than this one are capitalized. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support first per WP:DIFFCAPS; no other article is titled "high society". As others have pointed out, the dab page should go to High Society, as it's disambiguating the many articles using the capitalized term. Station1 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nominator, I'm fine with WP:DIFFCAPS and using High Society as a disambiguation in this case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.