Talk:Elite theory

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article talks almost entirely about elite theorists, and very little about elite theory itself, which is probably something that should be remedied. 129.133.127.184 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that certainly the discussion section of this article will be extremely short, mainly because no-one ever reads this type of stuff. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean!.. It's a shame. Mando Salama (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.182.33.21 (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph of this article, added by User:BlanchePoubelle on 5 October 2015, is an unreadable mess that becomes word salad after the second sentence. Any objections before I delete it? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections for almost two months, I'm taking it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The template message states "the article has no coherent discussion of the subject, just a bunch of expert utterances in separate microsections." It looks like this has been a topic of discussion since 2008. I agree that the approach is too focused on individual theorists, but I don't think it's incoherent. There just need to be more connections and contrasts drawn between different theories. Anybody have any ideas on how to start?

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 17 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ctucke22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sunshine044, PJ8421.

— Assignment last updated by ImagineWorldPeace (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]