Talk:Gentry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

can someone tell me the groups of people in the gentry

Bush's vs. Kennedy's[edit]

Reading the referenced article on the Bush Family it is stated and referenced that the Bush's are "old money" directly decended from British Gentry. The Kennedy Family earned their wealth primarily thru high-risk, high-margin, semi-legal venture in the 20th Century, thus they are not Gentry using the OED as a word definition source. rasblue 23:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) dan clark is the best ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.123.23 (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Truly, an awful article.

The term 'gentry' is now, largely anachronistic. It is best used only historically, and mainly within the context of The History of the United Kingdom. Continental Europe has very similar, though slightly different, concepts with distinct terminologies. The term 'gentry' is not really applicable to usage within the United States and the Southern gentry myth appears just that, a myth.

The article states, 'Southern plantation owners were often the younger sons of British landowners.' I've yet to see a single instance of this being true. And if it were so frequent or self-evident, then examples ought to be both numerous and obvious and yet there is a distinct paucity of them.

I believe this article requires serious revision (or removal), including but not limited to: a greater number of academic references incorporating the most recent academic knowledge about social class and structures in Monarchial UK; removal of any societies mentioned in this article distinct from the United Kingdom.

Articles concerning aristocracy or nobility, such as this one, read as though they are created by upwardly mobile (or pretentious) Americans, keen to perpetuate social affectations of poorly understood, foreign (i.e. non-American) societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.214.165 (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

removed last paragraph[edit]

It seemed inconsistent with the previous paragraph. As I see it, Gentry in Britain are small landowners while the aristocracy are very large landowners. This paragraph describes gentry as bankers and industrialists... i.e., classic Bourgeois. My understanding is that 19th century British politics were an alliance of the (Whig) Bourgeoisie and Aristocracy vs. the (Tory) Gentry and Monarchy, which is hard to fit into the Gentry=Bourgeoisie equation. David s graff 10:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

bourgeoisification[edit]

Is this correct? "In American society, gentry is sometimes taken to refer loosely to a highly educated professional upper-middle class, though this is inaccurate sociological terminology as this group usually lacks the aristocratic roots and values of true gentry. This inaccurate sense of the term is what is often perjoratively referred to in the use of the term gentrification, a term that would more accurately be called bourgeoisification." 195.24.29.51 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt really make any sense and it wouldnt be 'accurately' called bourgeoisification, 1. Because in the US as far as Im aware pretty much everyone is middle class or 'bourgeoise' 2. the term dosent exist, so its inaccurate.86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bush Family[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference for the Bush family statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.31.47.161 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Question[edit]

Can someone tell me what the german gentry were called again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.52.67 (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

British Gentry[edit]

In the section on British Gentry, I am not sure what "Women were often gentry" means. Female children of Gentry families were gentry even if impoverished. Wives of gentry men usually became gentry, if they adopted gentile manners and speech. The article does not indicate that British gentry families provided candidates for Parliament, JPs, vicars, militia officers, and High Sheriffs (Collectively known as "The Squirearchy". Vernon White . . . Talk 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a question: are David Cameron and George Osborne considered members of the British gentry ? 189.19.80.253 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gentry vs. Landed Gentry[edit]

There two options in my mind: 1. This article, i.e. GENTRY, is separate article from the (British) Landed Gentry article and expounds the term it in it's widest possible sense. It should thus describe the echelons of the rural upper classes, nobles, rural patricians-a member of a long established land owning wealthy family, bishops, vicars of larger larger parishes- Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic etc. These mentioned classes are connected to the traditions of Manorialism and the last vestiges of the feudal society in the rural setting. To the previously mentioned group does not include city patricians ex. , the tradition of urban aristocracy, (Netherlands, German Towns- Hansa, Venice, Florence) established merchant, industrialist or academic families-dynasties.

2. Wipe out this article i.e. GENTRY and merge it with the Landed Gentry article and limit thus the discussion to the exclusive British term, LANDED GENTRY, that describes only thr minor land owning aristocracy in Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondiegos (talkcontribs) 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian nobility French nobility Western Ukrainian nobility Datu Timawa Azat Belgian nobility Danish nobility Irish nobility Norwegian nobility Rangatira (Cook Islands) Malietoa Swiss nobility Thai royal and noble titles Krupski Lithuanian nobility Polish landed gentry Belarusian nobility Mongolian nobility Nobile Landed gentry (China) Sicilian nobility

DEFINITION-QUESTION[edit]

GENTRY is in my humble opinion as the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary says: people of high social class in the past - rural societyor as in Old French genterie, from gentil ‘high-born, noble’)

LANDED GENTRY: Landed gentry is a traditional British social class consisting of "gentlemen" in the original sense; that is, those who owned land in the form of country estates to such an extent that they were not required to actively work, except in an administrative capacity on their own lands. The estates were often (but not always) made up of tenanted farms, in which case the gentleman could live entirely off rent income. MY COMMENT. Burke's Landed Gentry IS NOT A DICTIONARY THAT ACCURATELY DEFINES THE TERM LANDED GENTRY, BUT PRESENTS IN Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage WHO WHERE NOT MENTIONED Burke's Peerage. SO DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage WHICH WAS CREATED AS A SUPPLEMENT LIST TO Burke's Peerage BY ACCIDENT OR TRADITION DEFINES THAT ONLY THE MINOR BRITISH ARISTOCRACY etc. IS THE LANDED GENTRY OR IS IT SIMPLY those who owned land in the form of country estates to such an extent that they were not required to actively work.


german gentry-Junker[edit]

was a member of the landed nobility of Prussia and eastern Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junker


Wuerttemberg and Baden were not Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.96.248 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Gallery cleanup[edit]

I think that the Gentry article needs a major Gallery cleanup. For each country there is a gallery with people that are examples of its gentry. The people from each gallery are completely randomely chosen and this leads to two things:

1)The article becomes ridiculous and

2)Some old computers cannot afford such a large amount of images.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are far too many images on this page - they need to be drastically reduced. WP:NOTGALLERY. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Answering the claim of "people from each gallery are completely randomly chosen".
1) This claim is absolutely false and misleading in it's exaggerated tone. I have personally contributed large parts of the text and pictures in the Baltic section modeled on the format of previous generous contributors to the Gentry article. The personalities in the galleries where carefully selected using certain criteria and to enable the representation of the whole local upper class and avoiding oversimplifing and thus advertently misguiding.
A. important regions (Latvia, Estonia, Sweden and Russia ex.). Central in understanding the area and it's varying influences. The wide geographical span of the Baltic gentry's ::influence should not be underestimated (Swedish and Russian Empires). (ex. Herman Wrangel. Peter Clodt von Jürgensburg and Friedrich Bidder)
B. Historical period and also the artistic representation in portrait painting (from the German colonization to the Russian revolution and even present day ex. Bishop of Riga Albrecht von Buxthoeven, Evgeny Miller and Alexy II of Moscow)
C. The careers and profession of the upper class (ex Karl Ernst von Baer, Johannes Gezelius the younger, Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly).
D. Family names too are important as they show the law, custom and origin of the so called Baltic Germans. The nationalist propaganda of the late 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th century portrayed the Baltic German as an oppressive German clique that had settled in the Baltic. This of course was far from the truth as many families where not from German lands at all. (Lionel Kieseritzky, Adam Johann von Krusenstern, Jacob De la Gardie)
E. Noted Women in the history of the Baltic region (Dorothea Lieven, Dorothea von Medem)
If you feel that you can contribute something more thoughtfully selected and more informative, do the the complete work yourself, if you please. No random deleting. Thank you. Pgarret (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If loading pictures is an issue, I suggest only adding pictures of the most important gentries and adding links to pages of all the other gentries. There should be at least one picture of a gentry from each category and all the other pictures should be on each gentry's individual page. Yes, no? Thepoodlechef (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think the biggest issue here is one of reliable sources. Who says that these particular people are considered "Gentry"? What is the standard for inclusion? Are we presenting the widest possible range of people so considered? Why those specific people and not any of the other tens of thousands who might qualify? It's a pretty vague term after all. I don't see any value whatever in listing particular individuals. How does this improve our understanding of what "Gentry" is? Your lists won't ever be comprehensive and they are certainly arbitary and unsourced. Why does seeing a picture of a "Gentry" person add to the value here? What does the reader gain from these galleries? No - I think they should be removed. SteveBaker (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Answering the question " Who says that these particular people are considered "Gentry"? "
Gentry (origin Old French genterie, from gentil, "high-born, noble") denotes "well-born and well-bred people" of highsocial class, especially in the past. Gentry, in its widest connotation, refers to people of good social position connected to landed estates (see Manorialism), including various ranks of nobility, clerical upper crust and "gentle" families of long descent who never obtained official right to bear a coat of arms. Pgarret (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm well aware of the definition of the term. That's not the problem. My question is: "On whose authority does Wikipedia determine that the people depicted in these images are in fact persons who fit that definition?". We need reliable sources for that kind of thing. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a little blue number after each images' description that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm that some historian or other expert says "So-and-so was gentry"...or words to that effect. This is especially crucial when applying vague terms like "good social position", "various ranks", "upper crust" and "long descent" which have no black-and-white delineation. We (as editors of Wikipedia) are not allowed to make such value judgements - we require the written evidence of an expert in the field, published in some reputable book or journal. SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The removal of some pictures, as just effected by Nikkimaria, has just technically rendered the situation with images worse. Those that remain for England depict now only the nobility and none of the gentry. The nobility comprises those who bear peerage dignities (as all those in the images do), whereas the term "gentry" in England came to encompass the untitled nobility and also those of families of distinction that have never borne Arms. On this basis, all remaining pictures should be removed. Editor8888 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I rather agree, but what were these grandees doing here in the first place? Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorted now from my point of view, although the one large picture (Jonkheer Jacob van Eyck) is distorting the page. Editor8888 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's some of the others that are much too small. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In the English speaking world the the terms Gentry and Landed Gentry is mostly seen as the same thing. Citing the gentry article the "The idea of gentry in the continental sense of "noblesse" is extinct in common parlance in England". But now we are talking about Gentry in the wider continental sense of "gentil", people of good social position connected to landed estates of long descent. The problem it is claimed is the copious amount of illustrations in the article is just one to many. I claim the the subject in question must have more latitude than e.g. the article Bird where there already exists sub-articles. It is understandable that there are not too many illustrations in the article List of extinct birds as there are no existing visual representations of all extinct birds. However it has many sub-articles (ex. Flightless bird for the Dodo ) that can portion out any further space requirement . This is not the case with the article Gentry which also includes subject matters such as the social sciences and the humanities. Major Torp (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to create or expand subarticles as you see fit. However, the above discussion, which was open for over a month, has a clear consensus to drastically reduce the number of images in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


It seem people who normally would not read anything related to this subject or have even glanced at this article before this small Intermezzo suddenly feel for some strange reason compelled to launch a crusade on an subject matter and connected material they have no special knowledge or interest in. I haven't seen them ranked in the contributors list of this article. The article itself provides many of the answers people here ask. So even the basic requirement of having read the article is not fulfilled.

Do we dismantle the article or leave it as it is and let it develop to an separate gentry articles that would come in time. To prune elegantly is a difficult task, but seems to be taken extremely light heartedly by many. A chop there chop here is not the art of the knowledgeable surgeon, but of an self appointed amateur butcher

The only viable option is to expand parts enabling the creation of and separate article with detailed illustrations. What would remain is an short overview and link to the article. I highly question at the present the good will here and the capability of many here to under take the creation of separate articles. Major Torp (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, there are several viable options. You could start by not edit-warring and instead engaging in discussion. You could also focus on the content instead of contributors. Next, given that significant portions of this article are already duplicated in other articles, your argument in favour of further expansion seems ill-founded - this is a broad topic and should use summary style, and subarticles should be developed as subarticles rather than further enlarging an already bloated page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
From where did you appear to chop here and there. There is no sense of leaving individual pictures. This is an social class which is wide and as group has to bee presented as such. The material should stay until it transfered to appropriate sub articles e.g. The Scandinavian Gentry. By what right did you even start chopping. Are you knowledgeable of this academic field, have you contributed before to related subjects on an extensive scale or even just contributed any significant part of this article that would show that you know about the matter at hand. Let me remind you that it was you who started the unwarranted, without any discussion (until informed and strongly advised to use the Talkpage), large scale chopping of this article that made it look like some halfdone clearcutting. You do the work if you want the change. The text and illustrative contributions of many should be preserved through integration and further development. Major Torp (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the case. The problems with the number of images in this article were pointed out both on the talk page and at WP:ANI before I edited the article. There is a clear sense in reducing the massive amount of images that were originally in the article - WP:NOTGALLERY. Furthermore, there is no requirement that any editor to the article be knowledgeable about the academic field, have contributed to related subjects on an extensive scale, or in any way demonstrate their expertise (because anyone can edit is a key principle of Wikipedia) - and quite frankly, you don't know what anyone's background is, because most editors are anonymous anyways. As I pointed out earlier, significant amounts of information in this article are already in subarticles, and the proper approach would be to make this article a summary of the relevant subarticles, rather than attempting to cover every detail of every subtopic here. You also have no cause to undo edits agreed upon by consensus, nor helpful edits that do things like improve the prose, without a valid reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the great rush! One makes first a plan, then discussion, then calls upon wikipedia editors in related wikipedia history project to help. First a plan of action has to be drawn up. Let it the material be dealt with and appropriately transferred before texts are summarized and pictures removed. Please quench your desire to stamp the "Ordnung muss sein" seal on this article and wait the broomstick for a while. Major Torp (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, you get started on that. In the meantime, I'll remove the galleries that have already been discussed and agreed to be inappropriate, above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems some of the summarizing looks good and even commendable. The Dutch segment was was not properly made up and was well to go. It presented only Jonkheers, excluding other illustrative examples of the Dutch gentry Major Torp (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are contributers itching to correct the occasional lapsus linguae could help with the article Bildungsbürgertum which I have been working on. Major Torp (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria for the language corrections and the remodeling you did with the Bildungsbürgertum article. Major Torp (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For my own part and some other contributers the article could keep it's bulk. There has to be a home and as such nothing will be needlessly thrown overboard. Some claim that materials (i.e. texts, pictures) are overflowing. What I can contribute is an preposition and a tentative step toward action. I will put in in the three new subarticle names in the Gentry article so an possible material transfer and creation of new articles can be made available. At this stage I can do very little else. I don't have the the knowledge to handle the subject matters which includes Germany's and Spain's gentry (meaning the Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elite) and all the connected aspects of social sciences and the humanities linked in all of this. First three Gentry of Scandinavia?, Gentry of Hungary?, The North American Gentry? is thrown in to the wikipedia cyberspace for trial Major Torp (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I claim the the subject in question must have more latitude than e.g. the article Bird where there already exists sub-articles. It is understandable that there are not too many illustrations in the article List of extinct birds as there are no existing visual representations of all extinct birds. However it has many sub-articles (ex. Flightless bird for the Dodo ) that can portion out any further space requirement . This is not the case with the article Gentry which also includes subject matters such as the social sciences and the humanities. This not a question if storing pictures or just displaying them. It serves as a fact chart of all those things already listed by User:Pgarret.

QUOTING User:Editor8888
The removal of some pictures, as just effected by Nikkimaria, has just technically rendered the situation with images worse.
Major Torp (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
"On this basis, all remaining pictures should be removed" - User:Editor8888. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Remove ALL then if you feel it is your prerogative! I would not personally recommend it. Major Torp (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Subhead[edit]

The article has been emptied of content and moved to totally wrong places. Ex. Polish gentry is not at all Szlachta. Why was this act of factual ignorance done? There are clearly people here who do not know the subject and make grave errors. The etymology and genealogy of Scandinavian surnames where removed, which are vital for the understanding of the Swedish and Finnish Gentry. Also the gallery of the Swedish gentry was hacked into useless peaces and not moved properly into other befitting articles. I ask for the last time the User:Nikkimaria to halt her activities until things have been settled, planed, accepted and if needed moved to existing or newly created articles. Major Torp (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria please stop the radical erasing in the Gentry article and please calm down. There is no hurry. Let the material be and don't just massively pull down the drain material and contributions. Let this be settled the proper way and don't claim that this dispute was settled in your favor and that you are just implementing WP rules. Major Torp (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
But the matter was settled the "proper way" and I am implementing WP rules. There was a month-long RfC (see beginning of this section) that concluded that there were far, far too many images in this article, per WP:NOTGALLERY. You may disagree with the result of this discussion, but that does not mean that the discussion does not exist. You've already been directed to WP:CONSENSUS. Please read it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


The image of the traditional gentry illustrated through surnames, titles, regional variances of ancestry and portrait art in varying epochs is not conflict with WP:NOTGALLERY. The galleries in question are not "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", "not mere collections of external links or Internet directories". "If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context", which they definitely have when portraying this subject in the context of history, art and sociology.
User:Nikkimaria should been advised to read herself the WP:CONSENSUS. I think the position I have argued is backed by the discussion. I have been extremely cooperative and advised you how to deal with materials and even myself in a gesture of good will summarized texts, trimmed galleries and overall contributed jointly to an reduction in material. Several galleries have been removed to other articles, according to the advice given by me and furthermore other galleries have also been drastically trimmed. More than half of all material in the article has been drastically cut down and there is no need for it anymore at the current time. User Nikkimaria did not have an consensus in this talk page, but nevertheless I have gone with the large scale changes in the Gentry article concerning images and texts. Now I definitely feel that Nikkimaria has had her personal will and wish respected and so the case should be solved. Any further action by Nikkimaria would destroy the a complete, illustrative set of galleries. QUOTE: The removal of some pictures, as just effected by Nikkimaria, has just technically rendered the situation with images worse. The solitary crusade to cut down material was started by Nikkimaria and has been propelled only be herself in the most uncompromising way ever since. I hope that Nikkimaria understands that she has got what she wanted and should not aggravate the already sensitive situation. (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not about what I want, it's about what's appropriate according to WP conventions and rules. Again, please look at the discussion further up the page (including the complete context of the excerpt you quote), where discussion concluded that the large-scale galleries should be removed. Please also read WP:SUMMARY with regards to what a large-scale article like this one should contain. Finally, examine the details of WP:MOS, particularly WP:SEEALSO. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not about what I want, it's about what's appropriate according to WP conventions and rules. Yes I agree! I just don't understand how you read them. I urge you to talk a look at WP:SUMMARY, WP:MOS, WP:SEEALSO. If you still feel that your case is simply stated in the WP:SUMMARY, WP:MOS, WP:SEEALSO and the much cited WP:CONSENSUS please summarize your case by the help of the material in them so it can be discussed. See also Canned response, WP:Categorization of people, WP:Image use policy, WP:Help:Edit summary, WP:Editorial oversight and control Hope this is of use.(talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Alright then:
  1. Help:Edit summary: I have consistently used an edit summary, and have only marked edits as minor when it is appropriate to do so. You cannot say the same.
  2. WP:CONSENSUS: in the discussion above, 6 editors, including me, suggest that there are way too many images. Two, including you, argue that this is not the case. Reading the full discussion, until your arrival, the version that was used on 12 April vis-a-vis images had consensus.
  3. WP:SUMMARY: When an article reaches 50K, it is appropriate to begin splitting material into subarticles (the current article is 85K). Ideally the sections of a broad article provide summaries of independent articles. Information on a topic should not all be contained in a single article, particularly if the topic is broad.
  4. WP:SEEALSO: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." Many of the links in your preferred See also section are repeated from the text.
  5. WP:MOS: many things here. 1) use the "main" template to indicate where more details may be found from a summary-style article 2) many details of formatting and spelling/grammar 3) Do not use bold for section headings; use header code as necessary 4) Do not use boldface for emphasis; typically only the title of the article is bolded 5) use dashes for ranges and sentence breaks, not hyphens 6) provide complete citations for all material that is challenged, likely to be challenged, someone's opinion, statistics, etc 7) avoid sandwiching text between two images 8) use internal links only where helpful, relevant, not redundant, and not repeated in close proximity
  6. WP:Image use policy: Wikipedia is not an image repository, "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject" should be improved or removed. Using multiple galleries in a single article is discouraged. Images should add to a reader's understanding of a subject and should not be material easily described in text. Having too many images will make a page slow to load. All images should include source information and a valid copyright tag making them suitable for use; many of the images in this article do not meet that requirement (examples include all images tagged only with PD-old, images like File:GeorgeChurchill.jpg which lack author information, images like File:General_Carter-Campbell.png which lack a valid copyright tag and/or evidence of permission, etc)
Now, could you do the same? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To the first point I can admit. I have marked many edits as minor. To the other point's you read them as you wan't them to be. Texts and images have been reduced, then reduced and then reduced. What is your major malfunction, your agenda has been fulfilled. This article has taken it's time to be where its is, then drastically altered and now you can not let go your cleaning session. Put the broomstick in the cleaning cupboard. (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do so, once this article is policy-compliant. The galleries of different gentries have now been exported to Wikimedia Commons, where they belong. You are free to add or subtract images there as you feel appropriate. Now, if you are unable to explain your edits with reference to policy - particularly your mass reverts of useful edits and your use of personal attacks and battleground behaviour, I'm afraid you'll have to step back. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria was and is the primus motor and continues to mass reverts of useful edits even after compromise and conciliatory edits and summarizing has been done. Your solitary and unsupported mass edit is battleground behaviour. Please stop your radical and unconciliatory behavior, as you have been asked to do on repeated occasions. It is not constructive to try to blame me for your own behavior. I apologize if my analogy was offensive, but what else can your behavior be then repeated obsessive cleaning. (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have been most careful to incorporate your policy-compliant edits into the article; however, you have been reverting even the most trivial of fixes, like copy-edits and the addition of a refimprove tag. Again, could you please support your preferred version of the article with reference to policies and guidelines? Could you please also stop marking non-minor edits as minor, and remember to provide an informative edit summary for all of your edits? It would be most helpful if you were to engage in constructive discussion, rather than rave about "obsessive cleaning". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, how about we let the editors reconstruct the page in peace first and then critisize the result? I don't think anything good can be built with two opposite concepts applied at the same time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't want the Major to put significant effort into constructing a page that from the looks of his edits so far isn't going to meet policy anyways. Alternatively, the Major can answer the question, now posed for the third time: could you please support your preferred version of the article with reference to policies and guidelines? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, we'd better add WP:CANVASS to the list of policies that Major Torp needs to read. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
When reviewing the summary of the edits and looking at the nature of them can only come to one conclusion there has been by one party drastic deleting and summarizing. 1. Single-Handed drastic changes and ignoring at first the request to go talk page 3. has eventually turned to talk page but immediately solicited other personal Wikimedia workmates to help with the intended issue. 4. From the beginning of the talk page discussion has persuade a solitary campaign to drastically alter by way of deleting materials in the article. 5. Has claimed that has had a mandate for this and continued deleting but has nonetheless had some successes in summarizing texts. 5. After User Major Torp has cooperated in reducing radically the material but the deleting of material has not stopped by user even after about half of the article has been affected. Continued deleting and exchanged images for other images. 7. Listing breaches and hinting edit war, which she herself has contributed too.
Things to bear in mind
WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
WP:Wikipedia is comprehensive
WP:Overzealous deletion
WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
WP:Don't call the kettle black
Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
WP:Don't escalate
WP:Dig
WP:Don't cry wolf
WP:Don't declare ultimatums
WP:Don't spite your face
WP:Village stocks
and
WP:Newbies aren't always clueless
WP:Encourage full discussions
WP:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia - Be bold, but not reckless
(talk) 17:52:, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Torp (talkcontribs)
Those would also be good pages for you to read. And again, please use edit summaries and don't mark non-minor edits as minor, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:Wikipedia is comprehensive
WP:Overzealous deletion
WP:Village stocks
(talk) 19:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Torp (talkcontribs)
Yes, you included those links above. The last isn't relevant here (note the tag at the top). If you read past the first sentence of WP:Wikipedia is comprehensive, you'll find it isn't really relevant in this case either. WP:Overzealous deletion refers to deleting the entire article, which would not be appropriate in this case; what would be appropriate, however, would be to improve it to be policy-compliant. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It has been policy-compliant, but continuously improved. Please explain in detail what has not been so [[WP:The perfect article|policy-compliant] in the gentry article and why no one else has made such a fuss about it before and now, except you Nikkimaria. In your motive of action report please don't overstretch general WP principles and remember that change in the article had already been implemented. Major Torp talk 09:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I have already done so, in great detail, above, and in the edit summaries of all changes made to the article that you have summarily reverted without real explanation. Please explain a) what possible justification you have for a mass revert of helpful edits, and b) what specific issues you have with this version of the article. Please remember to read, in their entirety, any policies or guidelines you cite in your response, as you continue to cite pages that are not relevant here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Indo-European caste systems[edit]

Can we delete that section? It bears only the most tenuous relation to the subject at hand, besides which the works of Georges Dumézil are controversial. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. It is vital part when observing from the view point of historical sociology and especially when focusing on social stratification. Whatever slander is whispered in reference to Georges Dumezil is neither here or there or of any significance when he's academic qualifications in general are beyond doubt. Georges Dumezil - French philologist and cultural historian known for his influential claim that the basic organization of ancient Indo-European society was tripartite and centered around divine, martial, and economic functions (Watkins, Calvert. "Indo-European and Indo-Europeans". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Collège de France - Georges Dumezil http://www.college-de-france.fr/site/professeurs disparus/georges_dumezil.htm#|p=../professeurs-disparus/georges_dumezil.htm| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coll%C3%A8ge_de_France. Georges Dumezil (French philologist) Encyclopedia Britannica http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/173488/Georges-Dumezil. Putting back what once was Pgarret (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

-Except that Indian Caste Structure has four, not three rungs. The whole section needs heavy reworking, whatever you may think of Dumezil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.170.164 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Some Swedish Gentlefolk[edit]

I think one European country in this case Sweden deserves an historical and illustrative reference point to whom could be deemed Gentlefolk i.e. gentry in this case ( "well-born and well-bred people" of high social class, especially in the past). The links to the persons in question will no doubt answer any question concerning qualification or relevance. There will be some from medieval times, the era of the Swedish Empire (1611–1721) and so forth. Clerics, soldiers, inventors, artists, men women, minor & major gentry will be elucidated in a manner befitting Gainsborough which of course is the quintessential aristocratic artistic medium of portrait painting. Pgarret (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)