Talk:Professional–managerial class

June 2006

OK, this is a pendant to my discussion with Gerd, but I'll take it here as it is perhaps more relevant.

Now, what bothers me is that the fact that US Bureau of Labor lists some managerial professions does not mean that a phenomenon (it's just a talk page, let's assume this is the correct spelling) like that exists. Moreover, the sentence:

The Managerial class is applied to individuals who carry great responsibility within the corporate world and who, as the term implies, supervises other mostly white collar employees.

[btw - what are the nice tags to make a quotation appear in a box?]

is rather POV to me, and not from an American viewpoint. My background is probably closely linked to the class discussed, and I would perhaps even like everybody to think of managers as of godlike creatures who grace the world with their existence and divine actions, but the reality is that managers are simply managers and perhaps a better description of their job could be found. The last sentence smells a lot of original research and stereotyping to me, even if you could agree it is true in a way.

Now if you take those two out, the first of which is dealt with in the management and manager-related articles anyway, what is left is a discussion of what is a professional and what is a manager by (I presume) Bureau of Labor standards, which I think does not really require a separate article. In other words, I don't think many people will link to this article or read it of their own accord (I believe you will make sure it will be linked to, but that's not the point here).

Excuse me for being so straightforward about it, but I am really wary of using the WP to argue a point or popularize own POV after the last outbursts of Wiarthurhu and some other discussions I had with some people elsewhere. Bravada, talk - 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm kind of the only editor here, but I wasn't saying that managers "godlike creatures who grace the world with their existence and divine actions." In the US many sociologist simply state that the upper middle class is divided between the professionals and managers in the corperate world. Of course, professionals are als sometimes managers but there is still a general differentiation between the upper middle class who earned its status in the business world, persons with MBAs, etc... While professionals are more liberal, corperate managers tend to be more conservative. This an observation made of the American upper middle class by most sociologists. The sentence you outlined is just a general definition that fits the occupations outlined by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. I can tell you that the last sentence is not OR but is the core statment of the article. I am not pushing my POV here and I didn't make up that sentence, it represent a common definition of the managerial upper middle class made by many sociologists. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 23:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I went hyperbole about the first sentence, but what I mean is that what you think is obvious and "general truth" might not be so obvious and even controversial to some people, and whatever you think of them, you have to put it into consideration. One thing I really don't like about Wikipedia is that so many people assume their views of the world and what they know about it are "general truth" - and it's only natural to do so, I do too all too often, so I am not blaming anybody. I am just, and will forever be, overtly sensitive to it, as I guess anybody editing what apires to be an encyclopedia should.

"Most sociologists", just like "most people", is a weasel word (or phrase actually). Again, I am not saying it is not so, "common knowledge" would suggest it, but WP is not a place to publish "common knowledge" (if it's common, why even bother writing about that). If you believe this is really important to mention that, please CITE those sociologists to make this point credible. I would also say any counterevidence needs to be cited too, and if there is a conclusion to be made about it, the results and methodology issues need to be discussed. An encyclopedia is where people go for in-depth knowledge on the topic, not only superficial statements.

To illustrate why articles on "sociology" (which is hardly a branch of science anyway) issues need to be treated with extreme meticulousness, and would better not exist than exist in a superficial form, imagine you find a statement like "Most Americans of German origin do not have sense of humour" somewhere [DISCLAIMER: I do not even remotely agree with this statement, nor want to offend you, just put it here for shock value]. You would probably, obviously, feel pretty uneasy about that, even if there was a good reference for that. This article might not seem even remotely as controversial as what I wrote to you or me, but I guess there might be people who would find that controversial, and whatever you'd think of them (as whatever a person who'd write anything about Americans of German origin think of you) they need not be ignored.

I wrote all this as I am under the impression that you are involved in quite many debates and articles on topics similarly controversial as this one. Please do not take it personally, I am just trying to convince you that sometimes quality should take precedence over quantity.

More importanly, however, I would question the need for such an article. I don't think that this entire issue (including professional class) can't be covered swiftly within the upper-middle class article. Again, I am being bitter today for, I guess, personal reasons, so please do not take it personally and retaliate, but rather take time to think it over. Bravada, talk - 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. Could have put it in much nicer style. Perhaps I'll come back to that on a better day and rephrase it.

Well as long as you tell that you had a bad day ;-) Okay, I will over time cite my source, but as you stated I am involved in several discussion so it might take a while. The problem w/ above statemnet is that some people will contest everything. I think we do need this article since there is this division in the upper middle class in the US and Wiki isn't out of paper, so... why not have a sperate stub. I would however, and I'm not being angry here, like to ask what you meant by, "trying to convince you that sometimes quality should take precedence over quantity?" Of course but I beleive that my articles are of high quality. Also, one issue w/ your statment "'sociology' (which is hardly a branch of science anyway)" - I do beg to differ ;-) No hard feelings. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many things that exist in the world that we don't have separate entries for and perhaps never should. I appreciate the fact that you probably deliver more new content to WP daily than I do in a week or even forthnight, nevertheless I believe the two "stubs" here are not really what is being meant by the authors of Wikipedia:The perfect article. Again, don't take it personally - I believe we are all trying to develop a better Wikipedia, and not "our" individual articles. I am referring to you alone, as you are the only person who is really involved here. As I said, let the emotions cool off and just think about it in a few days. So will I. Bravada, talk - 03:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. My main point is that "those people that contest everything", who you might find annoying malcontents, might in fact be people of a different viewpoint you do have to recognize. For Wiarthurhu, the people who did not agree with his statements and edits are just plainly negating the reality, but this is his vision of reality, not everybody's. Even if we consider ourselves as far from such self-deception as we can be, it's good to remember that we sometimes cross the thin line.

Oh, I don't doubt that other people's POV is as valid as mine. After all by trying to see the world from different perspectives is a very common way in which we learn. What I meant by people who conest everything is that while most, the vast majority of persons including you add valuable comments and expresss valid concerns that help one see things from a different perspective, there are some, even if very few, who will disagree no matter how PC you are. What I am saying is that I think there's a good reason for this article, I understand that without a refrence the last sentence does sound OR but it isn't, so just give me a couple of days to find and add a sociologist who supports the statement of the professional class. I though you were stating that my articles are of low quality, which I would of course disagree with ;-) (duh?!) I know this isn't the perfect article as it is a stub. So, what is your suggestion to make this article better? ([DISCLAIMER: I am not being sarcastic, I would like to know your suggestions]) BTW: I am not actually emotional, but I did laught at your German-Americans lacking humor commnet. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 03:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I do NOT think it's THAT controversial, it CAN be controversial, but even the seemingly innocent obscure motor vehicle can be, or the number of doors of it, as we've seen of late. My major point was that creating an article that represented a certain viewpoint and was not really necessary as a separate article might be bad practice.

And now for something totally different, I will try to be constructive. This article deals with a sociological concept appearing in some scientific works and perhaps used more widely. Therefore, it should not merely describe it as a given fact, as if it was an indesputable entity (like e.g. some chemical element). The first sentence should, IMO, go like "The managerial concept is a sociological concept..." (excuse me for not elaborating on that as I'm not really familiar with literature on this subject). Then, it should explain the origins of this term, the definitions in literature, the usage in science and perhaps popular use.

As concerns sources, I believe it is not enough to find one source supporting what you say. When you just cite some facts, like when you say "Ford Escort came with both petrol and diesel engines", you just need one credible source to support that. It's hardly disputable that it is so if e.g. the manufacturer says so, as it is hardly disputable that uranium is radioactive and you do not need to go through all the literature on the subject beginning with Curie/Becquerel. Yet, if there was some wacky theory that would contest such facts, it should generally be discussed in the article, even if only to dismiss it proving its fallacy.

So, every "controversial" issue should be discussed and presented from all viewpoints, and what I was arguing is that this issue is controversial per se, as it deals with some sort of social categorization and generalization. Therefore, it's not enough to base your article on ONE source (except for when it is a very recent, reliable comprehension of all of what was written about it). What one needs to do is (unfortunately) a thorough research on the subject. I don't know if you feel like doing one, and I strongly believe that without one the article will not really be an appropriate entry. If you are strongly interested in this topic, this might be a beginning of a splendid article. If not, why don't you turn it into a request @ e.g. WikiProject Sociology (this one seems to be inactive, but perhaps some related one is, or you can get some keen "sociologists" involved with that). Bravada, talk - 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very strongly interested in this topic, but there isn't that much to say, here this is not a term used by people on the srteet if you know what I mean. Most of what needs to be said has pretty much been said on the upper middle class article, but I will reword the article so it doesn't sound so misleading. And as I said, I am busy, so this might take a while. Thank you for your advice I found it helpful. Regards, Signature^brendel 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)