Talk:Elite theory

Elite theorists

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)

Somehow I knew

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)

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)

User:BlanchePoubelle's edits on 5 October 2015 make no sense

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)

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

Improvement of Article

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?

Wiki Education assignment: Political Sociology

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)

Neema Parvani?

What actual contributions has this person made to elite theory? This part of the article reads as an advertisement for a youtube channel. If reliable sources don't consider him notable or a contributor he should not be in the article any more than any other youtube channel or twitter account that holds this position should. Publishing a book is not a justification either- there are textbook overviews of many strains of thought that dont contribute to the position. 84.203.122.165 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)