Jump to content

User talk:JHP/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (~~~~) when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism

I actually didn't even look at the Activist skeptic parts of the article, so I didn't even see the problem.

I think the entire page needs a lot of work, which is why I added the clean-up template to the top of the page.

And, yes I do think that (although a little related), scientific skepticism and religious skepticism are separate. Scientific skepticism relates to matters that fall within the scope of science (falsifiable hypothesis) and pointing out when something is portraying itself as scientific when it includes non-scientific ideas (such as adding a magical and untestable forces) which means that its pseudo-science. Religious skepticism may use some of the same tools and logic, but it deals with religious claims.

So, to recap: if someone criticises a creationist's claims in regard to evolution not happening, then this would fall under scientific skepticism. If they also criticise ideas such as God, then then this would be religious skepticism.

The activist skepticism thing needs to be re-worked. Personally, I think that there shouldn't be a Debunker page at all, and that it should just be a part of the scientific skepticism page. --Havermayer 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Social pessimism

"Removing socialist pessimism. See this for rebuttal of Ehrenreich and Warren." You actually provided a link to non-existent article names after a URL. If you link within WP use "[[...]]", outside use "[...]". (oh, well, that happens ;-)) I understand removing the comments regarding class as this is a marketing term, but I don't see why call them social pesimism. I think you misunderstood my intentions as well as the comments. When I said that one theory states that only a minority are middle class, that does not mean I and/or the author I cited beleive that most Americans life in miserable circumstances. Obviously most Americans live decent lives, I know the statistics very well. The theory states that what is often presented as being middle class is really a life-style that most Americans don't live. Now, as I said, that only means that most Americans, while living decently, live a more modest life style than that of the "middle class" families you see on TV. Working class does not always mean lower middle class. One may correctly (that is within the bounds of valid theory) state that two average joe's with some college and an income of $60k are working class. (Others say that such a household is middle-middle class-both are correct). If the majorioty is taken to be working class, the middle class is quasi-elite of professionals and managers. On the other hand, those who take "middle" to mean "middle" of the income strata call these professionals upper middle class. These are two prominent and valid socilogical theories, none of which is meant as lefty-social pesimism. Also, understand that no one article is correct these are sociological theories. There is no right or wrong, no truth, just theory. This is not news, this is not left vs. right. This is Social Science, you know. If you want hard facts, you can find them in my Husehold income in the US article.
I did read the article (I just pasted the URL in my browser). Its very interesting, its true but doesn't relate to the sociological concept of middle class. What is middle class after all? There is more than one answer. It all depends. I just presented the two main view points: a) the middle is defined by influence and life-style and is a minority, with the majority being working class b) the middle is actually the middle, with the majority being middle class. Check amazon you'll find sociology books supporting both theories. Thus both should be mentioned. Take an economist making $98k/year w/ a PhD, you could say he's upper middle class and you would be correct. You could say he is just middle class, assuming the majority of Americans are wokring class. Please be open minded when approaching a subjective scientific discussion of a vague intilectual concept. This is not meant as left vs. right and even if it was you'd need to mention both sides in order to be impartial-you certainly cannot use one article to throw out two books as sources-becuase neither ir wrong or right. Signaturebrendel 08:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the article is not titled "middle class". There is already a separate article for that. The text I removed does not belong in this article because it is off-topic. Second, Hollywood is fiction, so using TV as a guide to "the lifestyle indicative of the middle class" makes absolutely no sense. The lifestyle indicative of the middle class is a single family home, one or two cars, TV, and many of the conveniences that most Americans enjoy. Two-thirds of Americans own their own home. Even more own cars. TVs and modern appliances are near-universal. So saying that most Americans do not live the lifestyle indicative of the middle class is flat-out wrong. Third, here is the definition of working class. The term applies to wage earners (as opposed to salary earners), especially manual laborers. There is really no debate about what working class means except among people who don't know how to use a dictionary. Here is the definition of middle class.
And yes, sociologists do often tend to be socialists. A lot of their ideas are influenced by Karl Marx and others like him. And yes, Barbara Ehrenreich is a socialist as well. According to the Wikipedia article about her, she is "an honorary co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America." Class is not only a sociological construct. It is an economic one too, and almost no modern economists would agree with the claims you are making.
Finally, I realized the link was bad after I posted it, but I had no way of fixing it. I figured you'd be smart enough to figure it out. My bad. --JHP 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That is your definition of middle class. Whose says private school and a four-year college education arn't typical middle class (only 27.2% have a Bachelor's or more, so that would narrow it down already). There is more than one definition. You cannot point out one article and say: "Look here is the true definition of working class." There are once again many different definitions. Working class may not just apply to wage earners. As I said above there is no one truth, no one definition for any of these terms. Working class people own "single family home, one or two cars, TV, and many of the conveniences that most Americans enjoy". Just acpet that there is more than one theory. There are those, like yourself who say the majority is middle class. Then there are those who say the majority is working class. There are sources and statistics a plenty to back up both ideologies. "There is really no debate about what working class means except among people who don't know how to use a dictionary."- That's false. A dictionary is not a sociological reference. There is debate. No offense but your POV seems awfully narrow minded. Citing sources stating "here is what middle class is", "here is what wokring class means" makes for a good laugh. "approximately average status"- yup, that narrows it down?! As I said, these are ideologies, not facts. If you want pure economic fact, there are no classes, just 113 million households with a huge variety of incomes. The rest is subjective and debatable by nature. Also, your source (the article you page linked) is consvative. It narrows the number of households it counts down until it makes the ridiculous claim the $73k/year is an average income. The median income is $43k, only the top 28% make more than $70k. Omitting one-income households who represent 58% of all is obvioulsy a bias move. Trust me I have written many economic papers and know how to make statistics come out "A certain way."- That's what the author you cited did. (Its actually a lot of fun) So if all sources are bias, we need to feature both sides. Omitting liberal sources is unencyclopedic. Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Some articles you should read, in case you chose to reply (Don't feel obliged, no offense but it really isn't plesant takling with someone who refuses to appreciate other ideologies which might contradict with his/her own ones.): CS Monitor, CS Monitor, Harvard Mag, Harvard Gazette. Oh yeah, if you want cold hard facts here: [1], [2], [3]

Yes, I read the Warren articles already. That's why my comment in the history said, "See this for rebuttal of Ehrenreich and Warren" (although my link was bad). I have noticed that you haven't disputed that Ehrenreich is a socialist, or that sociology is heavily influenced by Karl Marx. I think we both know that there isn't any dispute here.
The second CS Monitor article you asked me to read refers to "AMERICA'S huge middle class," which disputes your claim that the middle class is a minority.
I've never heard anyone suggest that private school is middle class. Private schools are usually for the wealthy and the deeply religious.
You said: "You cannot point out one article and say: 'Look here is the true definition of working class.'" My response: I pointed to the DICTIONARY. Don't you know what dictionaries are for? Even if specialists in a particular field of study have their own special-purpose definitions, the dictionary definition is the one most ordinary people use. It is the one that most wikipedia readers will use. Since "mass affluent" is not a sociological term, special-purpose sociological definitions don't belong in the article. Even "working class" and "middle class" are socioeconomic terms, not pure sociological terms. Economists generally use the dictionary definitions when they use these terms.
You said: "Also, your source (the article you page linked) is consvative." My response: If you mean politically conservative, then you are wrong. The American Prospect is a left-wing publication. See this.
You said, "It narrows the number of households it counts down until it makes the ridiculous claim the $73k/year is an average income....Omitting one-income households who represent 58% of all is obvioulsy a bias move." The number $73,000 doesn't appear anywhere in the article. I don't know where you get that from. It does say, "$63,300. That's the 2004 median household income of people in their prime working years, ages 25-59." However, that's the number for all households in their prime working years, not just married households. When looking at how much workers earn, removing recent graduates and the retired is a way of removing distortions in the data.
You said: "no offense but it really isn't plesant takling with someone who comes off as voluntarily close-minded and refuses to appreciate other ideologies which might contradic his/her own ones." My response: I have no problem with people who have differing ideologies. However, I do have a big problem with people who use Wikipedia as a forum to promote their political views. That is not what Wikipedia is for. I've read through the articles you've authored and you are violating NPOV like crazy. You back up your work with partisan political references and then imply, "Look, I've used references! You can't correct what I've written." You keep using the same sources: Ehrenreich, Warren, and the Drum Major Institute. Ehrenreich and the Drum Major Institute are both deeply politically-partisan sources. Only Warren is a scholarly reference, but I've provided a scholarly reference to refute Warren's claims. I've watched you remove stuff I've written and then replace it with your political dogma, but if I ever try to correct something you've written, you revert my changes. I can see that you guard certain articles (including the one under discussion) and revert any changes that you don't like. You are a Wikipedia bully, plain and simple.
You said, "Omitting liberal sources is unencyclopedic." My response: I am a liberal. I vote Democratic. I am a Clinton Democrat and I can tell you are a Dennis Kucinich Democrat (unless you consider him too far right-wing). However, I detest people using Wikipedia as a one-sided political tool. The sources I have cited in the reference section of the mass affluent article are not partisan, but yours are. My sources are on-topic, but yours are not. You keep stating the same politically-motivated claims across multiple articles, even when they are off-topic as they are in the mass affluent article. Look at how many articles you've repeated the exact same line, "the lifestyle indicative of the middle class." How many times do you have to repeat the same partisan claims? Wikipedia is not the place for someone to try to advance their political ideologies. What you are doing is unencyclopedic and it violates NPOV.
--JHP 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"but I've provided a scholarly reference to refute Warren's claims" - you don't refute. You add. If two paragraphs in an article contradict, that's okay. That;s what I have been trying to tell you. Some say the middle class lifestyle isn't lifed by those at the center becuase what is iconic of the middle class is subjective. Some say its a 4-year college education, private school, one bedroom per person, brand name clothing and appliances, etc... If you have two sources that contradict, mention both. Will your article mention two ideologies that contradict? Yes, and that's fine. Add don't remove sourced info. These are not just my views. These are quite common ideologies and thus ought to be mentioned here. Do I use any article published by myself? No. I am not using this to advance my agenda, for that I published op-ed pieces. Waht rubs me the wrong way is that you keep insisting that there is only one definition of what middle class is. There is NO SUCH THING. There several conflicting theories. Also, you're sources are partisan, the authors in many of them make Americans look wealthier than they seem, they do maniputlate the data. Also, if my sources lean to the left, than add some that come form the right. Don't remove my "Liberal" sources, add your conservative ones. Signaturebrendel 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I will happily remove sourced info if it is off-topic or intended to promote a political agenda. Show me a Wikipedia rule or guideline that says not to remove sourced info. --JHP 03:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Omitting sources and info is not what WP is for. What Ehrenreich and the Drum Major Institute made are valid observations which ought to be mentioned here. Most people think there is only one definition of middle class: Everybody who isn't rich nor poor. I merely add another point of view which I have backed up w/ plenty of references. Why would you want to omit valid info? That is a form of censorship. I am not promoting a polcitical agenda. I am merely trying to educate people especially about an ideology that the commoner might not be familiar with. Signaturebrendel 03:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Don't remove my "Liberal" sources, add your conservative ones." No. Wikipedia is not a place for people to advance their ideologies. --JHP 03:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not advancing a political agenda. I am presenting valid socio-economic ideologies. Exactely what agenda am I advancing by stating some sociologist beleive that most American are working class due to the nature of their work? What do you think am I doing here. I am here to present all theories that have scientific weight. Look its very simple:
  • Some say everybody who is neither rich nor poor is middle class.
  • Other say most are Working class and only those in the upper middle range are actually middle class
Both ideologies are commmon and ought to be mentioned here. On what grounds can you justified omitting the latter? None. I do represent BOTH ideologies in my articles. And I DO NOT violate NPOV, because I show both theories. Signaturebrendel 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Exactely what agenda am I advancing by stating some sociologist beleive that most American are working class due to the nature of their work?" Socialism. This article is not about the middle class. It is not about sociology. It is about a MARKETING TERM. Your edits are ideological (by your own admission) and off-topic. --JHP 03:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's becuase the middle class is an ideology. Do you see the census bureau label some income ranges according to class? No. I am not promoting socialism. Some say the majority of Americans are working class. That's a scientific theory that ought to be mentioned here. Read the intro to my American middle class article. Both theories are mentioed there. Trust me, if I wanted to promote socialism I would be writing an OP-ED not Wiki. How is stating the majority of Americans are working class promoting socialism. I am not saying they are poor or they need government help. I am just saying the go to work, don't have any influence and are paid for the sinple completeing of tasks instead of thinking, making them simple workers and differentiating them from professionals. Look at his excerpt from my Household income in the United States article:

Me socialist? FYI: Karl Marx was an economist not a sociologist. Signaturebrendel 03:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I realize that I have violated assume good faith in this debate, and I did not mean to do that. For that, I apologize. I mean well and I hope you do too. Many of your edits and your articles appear to me to be promoting a particular political ideology. My concern is the quality of the articles on Wikipedia. I feel quite strongly that the article text that we are currently debating is off-topic, wrong, and appears to be an attempt at promoting an ideology. You obviously feel otherwise. In addition, since the text we are debating also appears in the American middle class article and the upper middle class article (and probably others), I feel it is redundant.
I am too tired to do it tonight, but do you think perhaps we could negotiate the text of the mass affluent article instead of fighting over it? I really don't want to fight, but I do want good quality articles on Wikipedia. --JHP 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


You said: "FYI: Karl Marx was an economist not a sociologist." My response: Then perhaps you need to edit the Wikipedia article on sociology. It says:
Other "classical" theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, and Max Weber. Like Comte, these figures did not consider themselves only "sociologists". Their works addressed religion, education, economics, law, psychology, ethics, philosophy, and theology, and their theories have been applied in a variety of academic disciplines. Their most enduring influence, however, has been on sociology, (with the exception of Marx, who is a central figure in the field of economics as well) and it is in this field that their theories are still considered most applicable.
--JHP 04:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I do edit in good faith and do not mean to promote a political agenda. I do not want to fight either. I think we just leave out the word class and just say people with incomes in the upper-middle of the income strata. Perhaps if we just stick to Census Data we can avoid this conflict. About Marx, he was an economist who was also active in socilogy. As I have said economics is a social science and it is quite common for an economist to have taken many sociology classes. They are related subject; hence, socio-economics and you can easily be a "theorists of sociology" (which is not the same as an actual sociologist) and an economist (talking from personal as well as research experience here). "with the exception of Marx, who is a central figure in the field of economics as well"- that becuase he was an economist. So what do you say, replace any mention of class (that way I don't feel like we have omit importnat info) with references to income only (that way you should feel that we are statying on topic). Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. If I had known that all I had to do was remove all references to the word "class", I would have done that a long time ago. I only ever meant middle class and upper middle class as wealth/income ranges in layman's terms. I do have some changes to suggest, but not tonight.
I also want to apologize for making you feel like you were being censored. I hate censorship and that was never my intent. I view my role on Wikipedia as more of an editor than an author. I don't like sitting down and writing long articles. Instead, I like fixing typos and grammar, clarifying wording, adding bits of content where it improves the article, and removing text that doesn't flow well, is incorrect, is too wordy, or is out of place. And yes, if I feel something doesn't belong, I will remove it. That's what a good editor does.
When I first came across the mass affluent article, it was just a stub that had been languishing for a couple months. So, I thought I'd spruce it up a tiny bit. I made no mention of class and I had no intention of becoming attached to the article. But then within hours after my changes, this article that had been barely touched since its inception received changes by you that I wholeheartedly disagreed with. So I reverted the parts that I felt were nonsense. But then you put them back, and you seemed like a man on a mission to claim that most Americans can't afford to live in America. And that began our fight.
--JHP 07:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I see, I didn't mean to say that "most Americans can't afford to live in America." We just disagreed over termonology and the meaning/application of soic-economic vocabulary. I am glad as well that we have resolved this dispute. Also, I understand the role of editors here on WP (acutally they're also called Wikignomes) and I do appreciate their work (especially as I often forget to proof-read my edits ;-)) Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican

Your insights on the matter of the naming of the Democratic-Republican Party would be helpful now, as the denial of an early Jeffersonian Republican party is spreading to Madison's article and others. Skyemoor 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stossel

Thanks for the explanation of your wording. I am glad to hear that your intentions were not to skew the tone of the article. However, I still think that "seeks to rebut" can be construed (perhaps falsely) to cast doubt on his sucess. And the recent edit by Morphh to "debate and discuss" seems too impersonal to me for Stossel's straigh-talking style, so I have modified the wording to "questions the validity", which is (hopefully) non-judgemental but consistant with Stossel's purpose. "Challenges" also seems an appropriate term, but it's already used a enough times elsewhere in the article.--Benstrider 05:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHP/Archive_1&oldid=1049560157"