Talk:Social class: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Wahib Frank (→Class and starta: Weberian models: three-component theory of stratification?) |
imported>Richard Jensen (not new theory -- just a typo) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Should this be "Class and strata: Weberian models"? Is this something to do with the ''Dreifach'' or three-component theory of stratification or another typo? [[User:Wahib Frank|Wahib Frank]] 05:52, 11 May 2007 (CDT) | Should this be "Class and strata: Weberian models"? Is this something to do with the ''Dreifach'' or three-component theory of stratification or another typo? [[User:Wahib Frank|Wahib Frank]] 05:52, 11 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::another typo, not a new theory :) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 13:59, 11 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:59, 11 May 2007
Workgroups and links
Added workgroups and links to ethnic group and "race." Frank W Sweet 17:36, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
- entire article by CZ editor RJensen, so no need for Wiki reference. Richard Jensen 19:17, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
- I do not understand. I added the categories so that the article would be linked to from the three appropriate main page entry points. Is there a better way of accomplishing this? Frank W Sweet 20:14, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
- the links are still there. The best way is to have links on the other pages pointing to Social Class--this article. Richard Jensen 20:50, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
- I do not understand. I added the categories so that the article would be linked to from the three appropriate main page entry points. Is there a better way of accomplishing this? Frank W Sweet 20:14, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
"ly" - typo or acronym?
"Iy was invented in the 1960s": If an acronym, is an explanation in order for a non-expert audience (eg: me), or is this a typo? Wahib Frank 05:48, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
Class and starta: Weberian models
Should this be "Class and strata: Weberian models"? Is this something to do with the Dreifach or three-component theory of stratification or another typo? Wahib Frank 05:52, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
- another typo, not a new theory :) Richard Jensen 13:59, 11 May 2007 (CDT)