Talk:Elite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Elite, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Computer game

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

[edit] Elites in market societies

" In market societies, elites often have superior access to all of these resources, because they are so easily exchanged." This hasn't been thought through: in non-market economies elites still have access, but because of their shit status. Elites have access because of lotsa different things. A paragraph on the basis for elites in different societies might be a useful addition. Wetman 20:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

Someone has moved this from the normal English Elite to the French Élite which is a pretentious affectation in the English-language Wikipedia. Élite indeed. Wetman 13:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Appropriate indeed. Chameleon 18:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm moving it back to "elite" which is the much more common, and the standard English, term. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 19:01, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, Lowellian. English-language keyboards don't have an É keying, making access difficult. "Elite" in Wikipedia is a description, not a reproach: the word "elite" is worn so threadbare by approximate usage that it now sounds like the resentful bleat of mediocrity... Wetman 00:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think we should move it back to Élite so we have fewer disambiguations.Cameron Nedland 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources!

Sources! Where are the sources of the information for this article, other than the author's personal opinions? Also, what are the qualifications of the authors whom the author of this article cites? This article needs work. Kemet 26 Dec 2005.

Agreed. This reads like an individual effort. What's with all those sci-fi 'elites' (eg. the 4518th Lift Infantry Regiment) seemingly taken from a very narrow sample of global literature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.94.32 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Wetman's Talk page

Wetman:Can you explain your reason for deleting Elite Model Management from the Elite (disambiguation) page? I didn't put it there, but I figured it belonged. It is usually just referred to as "Elite". Thanks. SDC 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Normal: for the same reason Elite Meat Market isn't there either. Elite (disambiguation) disambiguates "Elite". It doesn't even disambiguate Elitism: perhaps it should. It's not a list of all Wikipedia pages that include the word "elite", after all, though perhaps the typeface point size Elite should be mentioned, don't you think? . "L33t" shouldn't really be there either, perhaps. --Wetman 02:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military elite

Shouldn't it be somehow included?

In my opinion, it certainly should. Unless I am misinformed the word was originally military in nature and later borrowed for other purposes. Furthermore it is used in a somewhat misleading way when used out of military context. A military elite is a group of picked men (it is almost always men) for their competence. A societal elite is generally not picked or chosen by anyone but themselves.

Later: Glad to see someone else contributing well to the military elite part of this article. I am somewhat skeptical of the list of elite units though. The Swiss guard was largely politically motivated. The pope needed a mercenary force loyal only to him. Likewise, SA was indeed a highly political force, but it can hardly be considered an elite force in any military sense. In my opinion, the same is true for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. I suggest these are either listed as "politically motivated military forces non-elite" or simply removed.

Sensemaker

They may not be elite in the military sense of the word, but this article is about elites in general, such forces are part of the political elite. I'll add a couple of lines saying as such.KTo288 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)KTo288 09:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with picture

There's a great picture of the Prince of Wales here as Colonel-in-chief of the Parachute regiment. It would be a great illustration of a societal elite assocciating itself with an military elite. However I can't seem to size the picture to fit in the page without putting the whole page out of kilter,can anyone help.Thanks.KTo288 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Hat?

Allow me to be seinfield here, and say "What's the deal with the straw hat?"

The straw hat has been returned to its rightful place by popular demand of millions of straw hat owners on wikipedia who wish to understand the appropriate time to wear a straw hat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the straw hat is irrelevant, will remove. Rds865 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unnecessary redirect

Note: I removed the unnecessary redirect from this talk page to Talk:Elite (disambiguation). The disambig talk page content is copied here in full and remains on the disambig page as well. This is an article of high importance to sociology. I believe the talk page and the Wikiproject Sociology evaluation of the article needs to be directly associated with the article. --Reswik 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of military elite?

I was a member of a elite F-14 squadron, (VF-211,'79 to '83), and we used to kick the Airforce's backside so hard and so often that I had lost all respect for them until the Gulf War. 80% of our pilots were Topgun grads, which was unusual at the time. We would "kill" state-side Airforce birds during wargames on average at a ratio of 7 to 1 to as bad as 12 to 1. Even the Airforce elite outfits flying out of Japan only got as good as 4 to 1. (A Tomcat flown by a skilled and agressive pilot is a truely formidable opponent.)

Cool story 58.168.229.121 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nazis were a business elite?

huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.99.227 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disorganized

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)

[edit] elites

The Business elites, and Financial elites, are pretty much the same thing. I propose, we merge the two together. Dwilso 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manhattan

My edit removing the content mentioning Manhattan being a example of the financial elite was reverted with the argument "Manhattan is very elite". Granted, some people living in Manhattan can be considered among the financial elite, but not all. You can see plenty of middle class and plenty of beggars in Manhattan. Further, there is no way of proving that they are the "most powerful group of elitist" (which doesn't even make sense grammatically). Without the addition of reference proving that this is not Original Research (which I don't believe exists), or giving an extremely good justification, I continue to believe the content does not belong. Please discuss before reverting again. -Verdatum (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My information about Upper East Manhattan, is correctly sourced and documented thank you! Dwilso 07:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Granted, I wrote this comment before seeing the changes after the revert. Still, the claim in the article was about Manhattan, not the Upper East side. And the claim was that it was "often applied to residents of Manhattan" The source you give is an example of an application of the term "elite" to the education system of that area, it does not properly support the claim that "financial elite" is a term often applied to residents of manhattan. Such a source sould be something like a sociology paper that said something like, "Based on my research, I conclude that people often apply the term 'financial elite' to residents of manhattan". The clause derails the thought anyway, the example of Manhattan does not belong in the lead sentence of the section, as it makes it seem as though Manhattan residents are the most powerful group of elitist, when the entent of the sentence is (I believe) to say that the financial elite in general are the most powerful group of elites. -Verdatum (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Elite

The political elite section was not deleted "for no reason", the reasons were given in the edit comment. It is pure, biased, unreferenced, dubious original research that presents a regional view on the subject. If someone could explain why the section deserves to exist in it's current form, I'd like to see it. If not, I'll blank it again in a few days. If someone would like to rewrite it in a NPOV form with properly cited references, I'd like to see that too. -Verdatum (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Verdatum. In the current form it is not only unsuitable for an encyclopedia but downright silly. -Sensemaker