User talk:Paul from Michigan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Mail-order bride[edit]

Hi! I see you're new here, so I thought I'd mention that it's generally considered impolite to edit other people's talk page entries, no matter how much you personally dislike the content. I've reverted your edit to Talk:Mail-order bride because of that. Note that this doesn't apply to regular pages: articles are a community effort, and you should continue to feel free to edit them in any way you think improves the article. Thanks, --William Pietri 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable. It is not the sexual content so much as the banality of the message. Editing and contributing to Wikipedia is very much an adult activity (reference to maturity as opposed to unsavory content!), and one should expect some frank talk on some subjects. So if someone talks about a sexually-charged topic that might be of wide interest (as in "District X of City Y is full of prostitutes"), then such information may be of value to persons who might desire to go to such places for personal gratification or to avoid such a place altogether.

The material that I deleted was not only a personal observation but a second-hand observation, one unverifiable. That it is of a sexual nature was not my criterion for deletion; I would delete accounts of such personal experiences as "I was at the World Cup", "I visited the Grand Canyon", or "I saw Jennifer Lopez". Big deal; none of those experiences are unique. If the experience has a rarity to the infrequency of the deed "I climbed Mount Everest", because persons who had such an experience are rare or "I heard Tsar Nicholas II of Russia give a speech" then to describe his rhetorical talents or lack thereof, or because one is the topic of an article on a celebrity, then one might have something to contribute. Indeed, I would be delighted to see people, particularly old give accounts of history as they saw it. Sex? Too banal. It hasn't changed that much, has it?

I saw plenty of other material in the talk section that offended my sensibilities, largely stereotypes of women or men of different nationalities, some on the brink of bigotry. If someone admits to seeking a mail-order spouse because of the reputation of someone from that country for sexual characteristics, domesticity, culture, or behavior patterns, then so be it. Bigotry and ethnic stereotyping are part of life, ugly as they may be.

--Paul from Michigan 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you should delete such material from articles, but editing other people's talk page comments is very rarely done. On talk pages, people talk, and barring certain dramatic issues like copyright violation, their efforts should probably be left to stand no matter how much they disagree with your personal tastes. No big deal in this case; I just wanted to explain why I was undoing your well-intentioned work and to keep you from getting in trouble. Regards, --William Pietri 08:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Lower Middle class[edit]

Hello, I read you recent edit to the Lower Middle class article I wrote, but have one question as your edit seems to contradict itself. First you state that the Lower Middle class has merged up into the middle-middle class. Then, however, you state that, "Clerical work that used to pay enough to support a family and define much of the lower middle class now offers at most a supplementary income that aids another adult family member who holds a low-paying job." How can the lower middle class merge upward into the middle-middle class if it looses pucharsing power as the result of low wages being outpaced by inflation? Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I was using the criteria of one of the more convincing authorities (Paul Fussell). I was speaking of the former American "lower-middle class" that comprised some highly-skilled white-collar workers (accountants, social workers, and teachers), a large category of workers with middle incomes who usually describe themselves as "professionals" (police officers, prison guards, firefighters, nurses), and clerical workers who used to distinguish themselves from "mere" workers by having completed high school. Accountants and teachers have become part of a somewhat-expanded middle class of white-collar workers with middle incomes. College degrees are now the norm for them, which used to not be the case. Some elevation in class for those who perform work that used to require less than a college degree but now requires a college degree seems reasonable.

Police officers, prison guards, and fire fighters experience obvious danger on the job; much of the work of nurses is blue-collar in nature. Their jobs pay well and offer economic security much as is so for skilled workers (Fussell's "high proles" who often out-earn members of the middle class). Such persons as foremen and other blue-collar supervisors are typically from the working-class world and rarely leave it. The alternative midht be to call the category of skilled workers "lower middle class", but that suggests cultural affinities with people who usually wear suits and ties (if men) and typically need college degrees to get their jobs.

Finally, the largest group of workers once associated with the "lower-middle class", the clerical workers, have -- unlike the accountants and blue-collar supervisors, lost the characteristics that once distinguished them from workers of little skill. Their incomes have fallen so dramatically from near the median, their work has become more mechanistic, and their job security has vanished. They are now subject to mass layoffs, and their subordinate role in life is broadcast at almost every turn. They are treated much like assembly-line workers in sweatshop factories, and they are paid so badly that their jobs no longer provide the basis of much of a living. Most clerks are effectively machine operators who have lost all discretion on the job (examples: keypunch operators and grocery checkers). Clerical work is usually a second family income that augments another (usually low) income.

In essence, the old American "lower-middle class" seems to have merged with (1) the real middle class as it gets college degrees. (2) skilled workers, and (3) semi-skilled workers. But as a catchall for people who must dress up for work and earn a middle income, it has become obsolete. Cultural and educational distinctions, once slight, between members of these components of a former large class of Americans have become sharp. Economic realities and working conditions among them have diverged severely.

Yes, police officers and teachers are middle class espacially as college degrees become more common amongs these professions. But "the clerical workers, have -- unlike the accountants and blue-collar supervisors" are not middle middle class, but rather still lower middle class according to Weber - and according to what you have stated above, perfectly fit the lower middle class criteris with "incomes have fallen so dramatically from near the median, their work has become more mechanistic, and their job security has vanished. They are now subject to mass layoffs, and their subordinate role in life is broadcast at almost every turn." So, if I understand your point correctly, Fussell states that poice officers, elementry school teachers and nurses have risen into the middle class, while the other lower middle class professions those of clerical nature have fallen below the middle class treshold and are now working class. Is that correct? Thank you for your quick reply and contributing to Wikipedia! Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Again, it is Fussell and not I who make the distinction. He still puts police officers, prison guards, and firefighters in the "high prole" category (skilled workers) due to danger on the job and nurses, likewise, because they do heavy lifting. Such people are not inferior to the middle class (Fussell's category) in income, but any change in the class status of their work requires a major shift of their educational axhievements to push them into different careers. Perhaps in nursing the RNs are middle-class due to their education, in contrast to the less professional LPNs and LVNs.

Clerical workers have, in contrast, been terribly debased in the sort of work that they do, in the pay that they receive, and the respect that they get. When full high-school educations were not the norm, these clerks had something to distinguish them against those who worked in factories as laborers. Now almost all of them have jobs run by machines as if they were on assembly lines. The job security that clerks used to have is no more, and for many the abandonment of the hope that clerical work offers a ladder of success leads them to improved economic conditions as factory workers.

Weber was right about the existence of a 'lower middle class', one that could improve itself through thrift and earnestness when he wrote about the classes. Those times are past. The clerks have been proletarized as completely as workers in the nastiest of sweatshops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul from Michigan (talkcontribs) 07:01, 19 June 2006.

Okay, I am not familiar with Fussel, so I still don't quite know what he means by "high prole" in terms of class, high prestige working class or middle class? Perhaps, you could answer me these two questions: According to Fussel are clerical workers part of the middle class or part of the lower classes? (Considering your statemnets above, I think you would agree its the latter) And also, are police officers and other "high prole" part of the workers middle class? Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to Paul Fussell's "Class" (aka "Caste Marks")? I enjoyed his book, and it has been quite a while since I read it, but I had the impression that it was more entertaining personal observation than serious academic work. Were his categories adopted by professional sociologists or demographers? If not, I'd consider him more a primary source than a secondary source (as defined in WP:RS). --William Pietri 05:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Fussell wrote Class in 1983, and some social tendencies force one to re-evaluate his statements on who is a member of what social class. Fussell largely determines the classes by the sorts of work that they do, at least between the upper-middle and the low-proles (unskilled workers). In general, work that requires a college degree establishes a barrier to entry to the field, as does an apprenticeship. College degres may be intellectually easy to achieve, but acquiring them requires almost as a rule either much money or the willingness to assume huge amounts of debt. Graduate and professional degrees are even more so.

That barrier between college and non-college implies a cultural difference, and one would have to recognize that a plumbing contractor and a college professor in the same community who earn the same amount of income can be very different. That likely manifests itself in different expressions of self in choices in leisure and possessions. If one prefers to make long road trips in RVs and the other prefers foreign travel, such is a cultural conflict.

Fussell's criteria for association with class seem to reflect occupational classification:

  • Upper-middle -- highly-educated and well-paid employees (typically requiring graduate or professional degrees -- MD, JD, MBA, PhD, MA, MS) and successful self-made entrepreneurs. Can include successful creative people, journalists, and actors. Typical occupations: physicians, architects, attorneys, college professors, business executives.
  • Middle: most white-collar employment requiring a college degree. Some entrepreneurs of modest success -- particularly if they supply little physical labor. Typical occupations: traveling salespeople, public school teachers (elementary and secondary) and administrators, accountants, engineers, scientists, computer programmers. (Fussell excludes registered nurses and police officers, whom I would include now because of educational requirements that have increased during the last twenty years).
  • High prole: Skilled workers. Work usually requires a formal apprenticeship or a vocational certificate and pays well. Examples: plumbers, carpenters, miners, barbers, licensed vocational and practical nurses, medical technicians, heavy-equipment operators (such as crane operators or locomotive engineers). I would include blue-collar supervisors and prison guards.
  • Mid-prole: semi-skilled workers. Little formal education necessary, and wages may approach those of the middle class -- when fully employed. Typically, machine operators and those in a machine-driven environment -- and the largest class in America in 1983. Drivers. Assembly-line workers. Keypunch operators. Checkers and cashiers at retail stores. Fast-food counterpeople. Toll collectors.
  • Low prole: unskilled workers. Very low levls of skills, workers generally treated and paid badly. Stevedores. Domestic servants. Orderlies and busboys. Cleaners. Trash collectors. Farmhands and ranchhands. Pickers of fruits and vegetables.

.... but with some allowance for tastes, conduct, and choice of material objects. --Paul from Michigan 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I spent some time researching Fussel and actually his system makes an awful lot of sense, as it is much more precise and contemporary than Weber or Werner whose use a working class. I think I may have to start some new articles here. Thanks for brinnging Fussel to my attnetion. Signaturebrendel 05:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pseudofreeway[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if the article alone should stay, or if it should just be merged. I added a {{subst:Afd}} template on it, and I put up a review for its deletion. This was not an act against you, or an insult towards you, I just feel the subject is a little difficult to grasp, and should thus be simply added to freeway.

If I in any manner upset with this, I apologize. I am a new user myself, so I may have simply made a mistake - and if not, others will come and vote on the article.

Thanks for listening, OMEN 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No apology is needed. If the article is badly written, then it needs revision, which has happened to some of my contributions.


It is a new article, and I would prefer that I could find some other name for it. The highway as a rule looks like a freeway but lacks the essential control of access that makes freeways far safer than surface roads. The prefix pseudo of course refers to a falseness. You wouldn't merge pseudoscience into science, would you?

Does it need more editing? Maybe. Perhaps someone will rewrite the article savagely. Maybe someone will add pictures. But I can't see how it merits deletion unless someone else has a more relevant discussion of the subject.

Traffic safety is a legitimate issue, and here I discuss a highway that isn't quite what it looks like -- a highway that is more dangerous than it need be.

Dog - Terminology - word origin[edit]

G'day Paul. Just wondering why you bothered to take info from the Etymology Online link and rewrite it into this article (26 June)? Especially as you left the EO link in place. Seems very odd. Gordon | Talk, 10 July 2006 @05:42 UTC


Hi[edit]

Paul I would be happy if you gave me any other kind of communication address like an email because everything you talk can be used against us if read by other people. Therefore I am erasing the message above. John9834 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

link to kansas city[edit]

Hello, when you want to link to the article about Kansas City, please do not link to Kansas City, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Kansas City, Missouri by writing out [[Kansas City, Missouri|Kansas City]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's quite valid when referring to business, politics, history, or culture. The two cities are different -- but not in climate. I am aware of the journalistic norm that on a dateline one must identify "Kansas City" as the one in Missouri or the one in Kansas, just as one must distinguish "Springfield". Springfield, what? Illinois? Missouri? Massachussetts? Ohio?

I was referring to the region. Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas have the same climate. But I will make the change.

--Paul from Michigan 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul[edit]

It seems like you are dragging the apex predator article down the drain (an article which I helped built from scratch and one which I constructed a long time before you came along and ruined it). Right now, I am dedicating most of my time on Wikipedia on the World War 2 & the Holocaust articles (German versions & Englisch too) and don't have enough time to open a discussion with you. However, you can rest assured that this is far from over. You made a long picture gallery of supposed "apex predators", yet more than half of the pictured creatures are not classified as such. Skunk? Skunks may be predators, but they are preyed upon by anything from bobcats to cougars and even bears. That was just one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in my life - "skunks are apex predators" ? WTF? King cobras? African Wild Dogs aren't "true dogs"? Who told you that? It's all just quite nauseating. You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a - predator - and an - apex predator. This isn't over, but enjoy for now as I am preoccupied with World War II. TheGoodSon 20:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the articles about the creatures to discover how predatory 'my' superpredators are, and how they can be masters of their own universes. I rely heavily upon Wikipedia articles for cross-reference on this article. Ecological roles for most creatures are well known.

Skunk spray is itself nauseating, and the predator that gets a whiff of that spray is likely to lose its appetite long enough for the skunk to escape. Skunks are omnivores, and without the prey they would be of convenient size as meals for larger predators as, for example, wolves or cougars. Skunks act like masters of their own universes -- which they are -- and are thus superpredators.

Next!--Paul from Michigan 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul, while your efforts are appreciated, what you are saying above is: "I add original research." You are deducing what is an apex predator and that isn't our business. Read WP:NOR. Marskell 10:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If a skunk had no predators, why would it have evolved defenses in the first place? Richard001 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Defenses? Most predators have superb defenses identical to their weapons of attack. If a predatory animal has a defense that altogether precludes predation upon itself even if it is different (including mobbing behavior), then that creature still qualifies as a superpredator.

Skunks have been removed from the list of superpredators because they are potential prey for raptor birds which have the means of dispatching a skunk before the skunk can spray the bird. That itself is valid cause for removing the skunk from any list of superpredators. They have been removed from the list -- and I hope that they will not be returned. I, as one who suggested the skunk as a superpredator, would now delete the creature from the list were someone to restore it.--Paul from Michigan 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Apex Predators[edit]

Are otters really superpredators? HEre's something from the Giant otter article: "The giant otter has very few natural predators. Caimans and large anacondas prey upon both young and adult otters by ambush. On land jaguars are also a threat to otters when they are in search of more suitable water reserves in the dry season." I don't see how they qualify. Justinmeister 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone introduced the giant otter (not I) to the article superpredator with a statement that in groups giant otters can overpower caimans and anacondas. I am satisfied according to his source that such is true. Singly, a giant otter might be snake food or caiman food, and that on land it is ungainly enough that a jaguar could easily catch one and kill it. That an otter is in danger if its watery environment disappears is obvious enough even if the 'only' danger is starvation from the loss of its usual prey.

As a rule we are discussing healthy adults within their usual environments.

Jaguars are good swimmers -- about as good as dogs -- but not as good as giant otters. The otter escapes if it gets to the water first. I was not aware that it is a social creature, but it is a big one, and it is a predator. There is safety in numbers for almost any large predator; one dog or wolf is food for about any bear or big cat, but a pack of dogs or wolves in adequate numbers can make any bear or big cat take flight. Were the giant otter not a gang predator it would not qualify as a superpredator. Heck, I wouldn't have put the dolphin on the list had it not been for its ability to deter sharks.

Now what of some of the other otters, particularly those of temperate zones where the jaguars and crocodilians... aren't? They would seem to have the ecological roles in mid-latitude inland waters that crocodilians have in the lower latitudes.--Paul from Michigan 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It might be an idea to move the paragraph about why great whites, among others arent' included in the list, to the Apex predator article. It's not really appropriate to have long descriptive paragraphs in a list article. Justinmeister 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

July 2007[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Polar Bear. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Alexf(t/c) 21:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul: As the above automated message says, your comments appear to be vandalism. You added dogs as a source of food to Polar Bears. The issue is what they eat. Dogs are not part of their daily diet. Unfortunately there have been several cases of vandalism in this page. If it was not your intent, I apologize. Please help us keep it factual as befits Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Alexf(t/c) 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You said: It might be unpleasant to think of someone's beloved dog as food for some other creature -- but mu intent is to warn people to keep their beloved pets protected from such creatures as bears, big cats, hyenas, crocodilians, and giant snakes. --Paul from Michigan 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
That may be a laudable intent, but it does not belong in an encyclopedia, but more on a website or even a blog. -- Alexf(t/c) 09:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bertha Fry[edit]

Your edit to Bertha Fry was incorrect, please see Oldest people. When Yone Minagawa died, I immediately went through and did the proper updates, thus moving Fry from fourth place (where she was before) to third, where she current sits now. The two people older than her are Edna Parker and Maria de Jesus. Thank you, Canadian Paul 02:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Review of Charles Ives[edit]

Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. MrPrada 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help![edit]

Thanks for your help on the snake article. I'm trying to get it rated as a "Good article" and every little bit helps!--Mike Searson (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Burglary[edit]

This article is a discussion of what burglary is, rather than what it is not; therefore, I've reverted your changes. Regards --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Wikipedia "talk" pages are intended to serve one purpose: to discuss the article and how to improve it. They are not for debating the subject itself, or expressing your views about it. It's not that I disagree with you... I just don't want to see talk pages cluttered up with off-topic discussions that obscure their real purpose. See Wikipedia:Talk page. - JasonAQuest (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entire discussion about the benefits of copyright law, etc. from Category talk:Public domain films because it is off-topic. Please stop using this page to present your views about copyright; that is not what Wikipedia is for. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit to Template Talk:US Routes[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Hans404 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)