Jump to content

Talk:American Dream

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.99.22.177 (talk) at 17:15, 13 March 2012 (→‎No mention of hyprocrisy???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Immigration and Industrial Revolution

Honestly, this article has undergone significant revisions and lacks any historical context as to the formation of the idea itself and its propogation in American culture.

The supposed 'American Dream' spurred massive emmigration from Europe in the 1800's which lead to massive population growth in urban areas such as New York, Chicago and Detroit. Coupled with the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs during the Industrial Revolution and construction of massive infrastructure projects such as the transcontinental railroad (jobs which were not readily available in Europe and abroad), the American Dream as an idea was already largely in place (even if the phrase wasn't coined until 1931). The perception was that America was the land of opportunity. Since the American Dream is not tangible and is rather a perception or an idea, this seems like a logical tie-in.

Immigration and the American dream are inseparable as immigration spurred the American dream and the American dream further spurred immigration. Does no one else see this obvious link? And the references to Ellis Island from years ago have been completely removed FivePointCalvinist (My Friends Call me 'Cal') (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well maybe and maybe not. There has been LOTS of migration to other countries (Canada, for example, and Argentina and Brazil). Better find some RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of hyprocrisy???

The "American dream" phrase was made in 1931, when many more democratic nations than America had Universal suffrage with the right to vote in everyone being treated equal, which America did not until 1965.... so the "dream" was only open to those with rights. The lead does touch on minorities not having equality, but the overview refering to the 19th century bogus claims of liberty makes no mention of the hypocrisy of this, with the existence of black slavery, no womens vote...etc etc. Its very unbalanced and onesided.Jeffarmstrong01 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think if you were to do some research on these "more democratic nations" that you refer to, you would find that this is much more theory than practice as well (and that many of those nations had "established churches" that ppl had to pay taxes to, even if they weren't believers, and that speech in those countries was more restricted than in the US, which is still the case comparing the US to Europe today--i.e., what can only be said in a part of Hyde Park in the UK can be said ANYWHERE in the US). Besides, sorry to say it, but it's quite easy not to be racist when you live in a country where everyone is one race. If nations of Europe (or anywhere in the world) back in 1931 had the same fractions of blacks that the US did back then, I bet you would see far less democracy on their part then they offered when everything was all white (just look at some of the racist policies European nations today show towards Turks or North Africans--or just Eastern Europeans). Of course, I'm not saying that the presence of black ppl justifies racism, I'm just pointing out that there are many racists out there (especially in 1931) whose racial enlightenment or lack of enlightenment has never really been put to the test.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the American Dream (back in the 1930's at least) wasn't just about living in a democratic country. It was also about being able to live in a country where you didn't need to have rich and/or aristocratic parents to "make it". Of course, most immigrants had the deck stacked against them in many areas, but, still, the chances for upward mobility in the US for such immigrants was far superior to anything that existed for them back in the old country (and in most cases still is).99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"what can only be said in a part of Hyde Park in the UK can be said ANYWHERE in the US". Haha, what? Why do idiots talk about things they have no idea about? What can be said in a part of Hyde Park, can also be said all over the UK.

This article is hopeless. Would protection help?

I've been following this admittedly difficult article for several months after trying to fix it, and it's been repeatedly vandalized and changed by people who seem to have not read the article and simply want to post parts of their term papers without integrating any new information into the existing article. Unfortunately, the topic of "American Dream" is a natural for high school and college study, and this site gets more than its share of vandalism, and uninformed and overly enthusiastic edits. What we need is a link to a page called "Term Papers about the American Dream" to drain off this traffic, or some kind of protection for the page so that only established users can edit it. I don't think "indefinite semi-protection" would be enough, though. I'm giving up on trying to stabilize it.Sofia Roberts (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the term paper crowd is finished. It was a class project for them, and they kind of unbalanced the whole article. However, for about the last two months, nothing has really changed except for minor grammatical corrections. At this point, if someone actually took the time to go through and improve the article, I don't think there would be anyone to mess it up again. And then, the next time a different class or student comes around to insert their material, we just have to take a firmer stance on rejecting their additions, unless they are encyclopedic. So, whoever is up for the task, go ahead and fix it up. :-) Nik-renshaw (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the last sentence of the section "From American Dream to American Reality". First, its grammar and spelling are atrocious. Second, it makes a very similar point to the previous sentence. Third, the cited study actually says that "the United States displays a relatively high mobility in education and occupations and a rather low mobility in income" (p. 67). So this section of the article is making the assumption that the American dream is only about making more money than your parents, which is not how the article defines the American dream in the opening paragraph. Marsoult (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, sorry for my english. I mean it's not a good idea to delete the reference to the OECD's study, which is a complete review of the topic (mobility), and therefore a very interesting document for the readers. It should be better to use it to improve this section.--ELeng (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

This article is, as noted before, highly unbalanced. A good chunk of it needs to be scrapped, as it reads less like "Encylopedia entry on the American Dream" and more like "Attempted Dissection of Misrepresented American Dream". As the peer review notes, the dream is a concept, not a reality. It also seems to be an idea nobody really grasps. I suggest the following definition for the Dream. The American Dream is: a belief that a person can be whoever or whatever they want, so long as they are willing to put forth the work and take on the risks associated with their ideal. The Dream doesn't involve economic prosperity, and to suggest that it does ignores the individualist themes of the Dream. It isn't one set goal, it's a method of achieving a personal goal. Saying that you have to have wealth to "live the Dream" creates a universal societal goal in direct opposition to the concept of personal freedom, which goes hand in hand with the Dream. —El Pez Dispenser (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC) comment added by El Pez Dispenser (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized version

Today's version of the article is very different from, say, last February's version. Is there a reason why so much has been lost/removed, or is it simply stale vandalism that was never fixed? -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is completely unencylopedic, and I have no idea when there was last a decent version. This page needs rewriting from scratch. Fences and windows (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that posters keep posting their own interpretation of "the American Dream", ignoring the requirement that articles are about what NOTABLE people have said or written on the subject. As I wrote a year ago, this article needs protection - at minimum, to allow only established users with a history of responsible editing to edit it. I did some research and revised the page - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Dream&oldid=167303457. However, that version is LONG gone. Sofia Roberts (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a request for protection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-protection#American_Dream_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Fences and windows (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes on The American Dream

Would that be a good section to add? I know one good George Carlin quote... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.119.200 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

biased?

is it biased 2 anyone else, dcollins52 is my username, just not signed in reply there if it is/isn't to u thanks!24.110.2.116 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unsourced paragraphs

I'm removing a couple of newly-added unsourced paragraphs as original research. The article will do just fine without them for a little while during which time we can tweak them and make them answer the requirements of good scholarship. Here are the paragraphs:

These aspects, along with various other important dimensions, converge in both philosophy and in effect, in such concepts as economic freedom —the ability to earn a living based on not just on the communal value of one's labours, but the current worth of one's intelligence, discipline, and creativity —and religious liberty, namely the ability to practice faith in the manner that an individual has chosen.
The result of these factors, along with the human energy that these attract, is that the United States is now a highly synergistic and efficient society —such that contributes to its continued innovation in all areas of academic study, government, and law. Ultimately, though not without certain caveats, the prosperity of the United States is understood to serve not just the American people, but rather serves the purpose of bringing increased freedom and prosperity to all human society.

My first observation is that the lede does not need five paragraphs. Removing these two brings the total down to three. Only in unusual cases of very complex and lengthy subjects will more than three be required, and I don't think we are beyond that limit here in an article that is perhaps 8kb in size.

Second observation is that the sentence structure is obfuscatory. It spews words and clauses without leaving the reader with a lit light bulb. Let's not detour the reader into a garbled tangle of wordy bracken.

Points to ponder:

  1. "These aspects [...] converge in both philosophy and in effect..." What aspects specifically? The prior paragraph talked about two pillars. Make 'these' specific or don't. 'Converge' in what way? "Converge in both philosophy and effect" is just opaque, bad writing.
  2. "...along with various other important dimensions..." What other dimensions? Opaque and bad. -
  3. "...[space]mdash..." The proper punctuation is just one mdash, no spaces on either side. Down below the "Show preview" button, there are some dashes you can click on to avoid spelling out the HTML version of mdash.
  4. "...based on not just on..." Simple mistake, easy to fix.
  5. "...labour..." I believe we have a subject that calls for American spelling.
  6. Easter egg pipe links like "[[workforce|human energy]], [[religion|practice faith]], [[American Empire|certain caveats]]". Make these links clear or get rid of them.
  7. "...The result of these factors [...] is that the United States is now a highly synergistic and efficient society..." This highly unlikely statement must have a source.
  8. "...Ultimately, [...] the prosperity of the United States is understood to serve not just the American people, but rather serves the purpose of bringing increased freedom and prosperity to all human society..." This requires a reference.

I hope that serves to clarify my position on the two paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that Binksternet's/your interest in this and another particular article is not coincidental and no doubt/obviously comes from his/your taking a studious interest in my own contribution history, I do appreciate that at first glance he/you appear(s) to be doing it right, and is/are explaining himself/yourself in such serious detail that makes it worthy of my attention(s).
With those formalities out of the way, I have not yet actually read anything of his/your above comments. I will soon. Regards, -Stevertigo 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have identified you as a writer who adds original research, so I have investigated your edit history. In some places I saw no problem with your work, but here I saw one. Looking forward to helping this article gain some sense of where its sources are... Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have "identified" me, you should consider reporting me. Otherwise its harassment. -SV

american dream

"My first observation is that the lede does not need five paragraphs. Removing these two brings the total down to three." - I agree that it was a bit too long. But removing two paragraphs is a bit much - particularly considering the concepts covered in the first removed paragraph. The second can go elsewhere - secondary maybe. -SV
"Second observation is that the sentence structure is obfuscatory." - Can you be specific? I don't see anything particularly ambiguous other than the "dimensions" note (below). -SV
  1. "What aspects specifically? The prior paragraph talked about two pillars." -The writing was changed by someone from its original "aspects" to "pillars." A subtle, yet typically monumental error. -SV
  2. "Make 'these' specific or don't. 'Converge' in what way? "Converge in both philosophy and effect" is just opaque, bad writing." -Agreed. - SV
  3. "What other dimensions? Opaque and bad." - Agree, in part. When we write "and also other x..." we are making an important admission that 1) the previous listed entities are not all there are, and 2) that its not efficient to try to fit the others in, at the current place. A parenthetical link to a subsection might be satisfactory. -SV
  4. "...[space]mdash..." The proper punctuation is just one mdash, no spaces on either side." "Simple mistake, easy to fix." - Fixables. -SV
  5. "...labour..." "I believe we have a subject that calls for American spelling." LOL. But is the "American Dream" just for Americans, or something that only Americans regard? -SV
  6. "Easter egg pipe links like "[[workforce|human energy]], [[religion|practice faith]], [[American Empire|certain caveats]]". Make these links clear or get rid of them." - I don't see them as Easter eggs, and in fact the terms are derive directly from their definitions. The last one is arguable, and I would not object to making the link a parenthetical (after "caveats"). -SV
  7. "This highly unlikely statement must have a source." - There is no point in stating how synergistic and efficient the US is, relative to say India or Afghanistan, as such things are obvious and need not be said. Though singling the US out as such instead of Europe or Asia is of course defeating the need for such statement. -SV
  8. "Ultimately.. world prosperity.." "This requires a reference." - Agreed. -Stevertigo 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the need to report you because you are not flouting the usual guidelines for conduct. Following you around to see whether your additions have merit is not harassment, it's good shepherding. Nor is harassment the selection of one not-very-meritorious addition of yours for discussion and correction. There are plenty of actions you take that I judge to be fine as they are, or handled capably by others. I don't intend to hound you off Wikipedia or make your editing experience a living hell; I just intend that Wikipedia not become an accretion of original research, and I believe you can be educated to become one of those people who add material which is backed by reliable sources. Toward that end, we've picked apart the two paragraphs quoted above, but we haven't yet made an attempt to rewrite them. What do you think are the essentials? What do reliable sources say about those essentials? Let's build this thing back up while following established experts:
Read some of these sources, find the ones that say the things you want to say, and quote them or paraphrase them, citing them as reference. Have fun! Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One stylistic point that bears mention is that this article is the sort that students and non-English speakers might turn to. Let's make our writing style a model of clarity, elegance and simplicity, while remaining true to the material. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's quote does not support the American Dream

It sounds great, but there are serious problems with parts of this statement in terms of the American Dream. Let's briefly look at the key points. This isn't the actual article, just discussion about it, so I think it's okay to express my own opinions on this page. Reprimand me if I err.

"each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will"

Yes! This is central to the American Dream.

"we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect"

Absolutely.

"The market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth"

It certainly should!

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs"

Wrong! Not only is this incorrect, this is a devious and destructive idea. A business does not exist to create jobs. It exists to earn money. It does this by being as efficient as possible, and this often means hiring as few people as it can, at the lowest skill-levels that it can, while still being productive.

You're right--that's why some sort of government intervention in the economy is needed because, due to the business cycle, there will always be ppl who want/need to work but can't because nobody is hiring.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the best of intentions, people lose sight of this central principle. A business has the responsibility to take care of its business, compete in the market, meet its obligations, fulfil its contracts, and be successful so that its investors can reap the rewards. In the course of this process, jobs are created and people learn and grow, earning their pay along the way.

If a company existed primarily to create jobs, it would eventually fail. At the very worst, it would ask for a government loan, or even a bailout, thereby taking money from those who actually earned it.

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to [...] look out for American workers"

Wrong again. If a business is not meeting the needs of its employees, those employees will eventually leave the company and find someplace that has better working conditions. There is no special responsibility here, that companies need to be nice to their employees. This is a result of the natural process; people will work where they enjoy working. If the company wants to save money on air conditioning, and passes the savings to the employees in their pay, then the people who work there are the ones who don't mind the heat, but enjoy the extra pay.

Have you ever actually had a job before? It isn't that easy just to quit and find a new line of work (especially for ppl working in lower income activities)--employers know this and capitalize on it all the time, treating workers in many industries like desperate serfs. In any case, you're just proving why it's necessary for the government to step in apply regulations in the workplace and why the reforms of the Progressive Era were so important (reforms that spoiled ppl like you into thinking the workplace was fine just the way it is).99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"businesses should live up to their responsibilities to [...] play by the rules of the road"

Yes, actually, if one defines the rules properly. For example, contracts must be kept, in order for trust to exist. This is one case where government is empowered to step in and take action; breach of contract. Also, every company tends to want to become a monopoly, because that is where the most money can be made, but a monopoly is not healthy for the system. The government must protect the consumers from anti-competitive monopolistic practices.

"we are responsible for ourselves"

Yes, please! The government must stop giving hand-outs. If the government wants to give something away, provide free skill training, not free money. People who put their very survival into the government's hands are not being responsible for themselves, and this is terribly injurious to them. Giving a poor person money to support their lifestyle just keeps them poor.

Again you're showing just what a spoiled little person you are (and I used to be like you when I was younger). The vast majority of poor ppl are NOT lazy or criminals and do NOT choose to be poor (and not all ppl have had the benefit of being able to go to good schools, grow up in nice, crimefree neighborhoods, or had enlightened, well-meaning parents. Besides, how does only giving out money for "skill training" help someone who's too old to get a new job, or a kid who only has a poor single-mother to rely on (and has nobody to look after him if the mom goes to work)? Should the kid pay the price for having a mom in a desperate situation? What about all those ppl who would like to work, but can't due to some medical difficulty that, thanks to our great health care system, can't get treatment either because such treatment is too damned expensive or its a "precondition" and, thus, isn't covered? What about ppl who want to work, but can't because they've been out of work for a long time due to some sort of illness, and, due to this, no employer wants to give them a chance (thinking that they might get sick on them)? Should they be forced into permanent homelessness because of this? What about ppl who live in an area without any jobs and who don't have a car to seek jobs far from home? Not all ppl on public aid are bums--in fact, most aren't. Get off of your computer and get a volunteer job at a charity, shelter, or homeless kitchen. There are plenty of poor ppl out there who want a chance to work but can't get one. What's better in this case, giving them money (and, yes, hopefully skills) to keep them afloat, or just letting them fall through the cracks? (BTW: the cost of incarcerating a person in prison for one year is a lot more--in both direct and indirect costs--than paying that person welfare for an entire year)99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"we also rise or fall as one nation"

Not at all! We rise and fall individually, and the rewards of our labors are not divided equally among the residents of the country. This statement contradicts the American Dream. You want to help out the nation? Have a good idea, start a business around it, employ people, earn some money, invest wisely, keep a healthy savings account, and spend your earnings on whatever you want. It's possible for people to actually generate wealth. Look at those who have been successful with respect, and work towards that goal.

Short-sighted. The most important resource this country has is human capital. For decades Europe and Japan have invested in their ppl's education and health, while our country has done little of this and, as a result, has some of the most poorly performing students in the industrialized world--students who grow up to become stupid adults who spend all day making idiotic comments on You Tube, news articles, partisan blogs, or become doctrine-spouting far right or far left Ignoranti. Thanks to you short-sighted conservatives who think it makes sense to play with just half a team, the future is going to belong to the EU and China, not the US--but, hey, at least you'll be able to spin the evidence like a good little dittohead and blog about how the decline of the US was really the fault of liberals and shiftless minorities.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The American Dream means that each individual has the opportunity to benefit from his own labors. Not that each individual works for the benefit of those who don't contribute. Obama seems to favor the latter, and his quote demonstrates this. Wadsworth (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again the spoiled outlook of the spoiled white person. You really think that all successful ppl are personally responsible for their success (and that the poor have asked to be poor)? If so, you know very little of life. Again, get a volunteer job at a charity and learn more about the poor ppl you have so much undeserved contempt for, and you'll see just how much the deck is stacked against the majority of such ppl.99.103.228.4 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because Obama did not use the two words "American Dream" in the speech, any proposition that the speech is about the American Dream must be supported by a reliable source. There was none given. The reference was not for critical analysis of his speech, comparing it to the American Dream, it was a link to the bare text of the speech. If somebody really wished to bring any of Obama's points back into the article, there should be a reliable source backing up the connection to this topic. Thanks, Wadsworth, for deleting the speech; as it appeared it was in violation of WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do so. Wadsworth (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

I just reverted Stevertigo's simple reversion of my thoughtful copyediting job. His edit summary was "no reason given, will take to Mediation if necessary" but I don't think mediation is necessary for correcting "a ethos" to "an ethos" and "liberty liberty" to just 'liberty', as well as clarifying 'residents' (versus citizens) to "other residents". I adjusted the triple occurrence of 'prosperity' to match the double occurrence of 'liberty' so that the two concepts remain matched in prominence. Having only one of them in the first sentence wasn't balanced, so I replaced the initial 'prosperity' with idealism. This last change is subjective, and ought to reflect expert analysis of what the American Dream means, so I'm open to a discussion of what best represents the main subject of this article. All I did with 'idealism' was strive to retain the balance between liberty and prosperity. FYI, my edit summary of "ce" means "copyedit". Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not often doubt your thoughtfulness. But your representation of events is inaccurate: I inserted the term 1) "ethos of prosperity" in the lede and you changed it 2) "ethos of idealism."
The last term is an oxymoron —an ethos is an ideal with ethical dimensions, or an ethical ideal, and in any case the AD is not an "ethical ideal about idealism." Your version makes little or no sense. You could have instead changed it to "ideal of prosperity" and that would have been in the ballpark, but even that misses the point that theres an ethic (hence ethos) involved.
The first term is accurate and conceptual (see WP:CONCEPT) and does two important things that a lede needs to do: 1) it covers the concept in conceptually general terms, and 2) links to a general concept such that other similar concepts are discussed. When we talk about "The American Dream," we are linking freedom → prosperity → U.S.A.. Put aside the national element and we have freedom → prosperity, an ideal, true, but again with an ethical dimension (freedom).
Now, the only issue at the moment is that there is as of yet no "ethos of prosperity" article —just a redirect to prosperity. Is the American Dream a unique concept, such that no abstraction is required? I'm certain it isn't, and I'm looking back as far as Hammurabi to validate me, or else confirm that the U.S.A. invented —along with fresh air and sunshine —the very concept that freedom and prosperity are linked somehow. -Stevertigo 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references to back up your assertions? It's high time we brought this article down to earth. It seems reasonable to me that the next version of the lede, whatever it is, should reflect the best writing on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not my problem, as I'm not getting into specifics. All I did was add a term to the lede sentence that categoristically conceptualizes (WP:CONCEPT) what "The American Dream" means — nothing particularly interpretive, opinionistic, or difficult to deal with, and yes, the "best writing on the subject" will substantiate the 'ethos of prosperity' conceptualization, just as that same conceptualization will point quite directly toward the "best writing on the subject." -Stevertigo 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have text you want to add to this article, I will want to see refs. You don't have to go look for them if you don't want to be involved here. Your choice. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept your choice, as your concepts of "required sources" are misconceived, self-contradicted, and even inaccurate: You just yesterday claimed (at talk:loudspeaker) that only new unsourced writing needs to be removed, while existing unsourced material need not. Just an obvious example of where your conceptual rubber does not yet meet the road. -Stevertigo 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the article that you and I just fact-tagged like crazy? Rubber and road have met. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I fact tagged it and then you at first sought to remove most of them, actually. But now that we've got your wheels on the ground, we can start to get some traction: I'm now looking at your own recent contribution history in the audio tech department. Take notes —we're going to take your sourcing and stalking concepts to their illogical conclusion. -Stevertigo 01:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken that I tried to remove them all; my edits at Loudspeaker first restored every one of the tags from an IP editor deletion, followed by a series of consolidations for whole paragraphs that contained nary a reference.
You know, I find it ironic that at no time from the beginning of June 2009 to now did you add a reference to any English Wikipedia mainspace article, yet you heavily tagged an article because it has major gaps in its references. You're clearly a shoot-from-the-hip prose kind of guy—a nice skill to have—but it makes it very difficult for other editors to work with you to determine content, context and flow.
The presence of a reference or two is what anchors a string of words to something that can be verified. This is what will help the articles that you and I are tussling over. Why would somebody argue about one unreferenced version over another unreferenced version? It's all phantasm and cloud. No, we need solid words that can stand up under barrage. This is where I would like to see the articles go. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BN: "You're clearly a shoot-from-the-hip prose kind of guy—a nice skill to have—but it makes it very difficult for other editors to work with you to determine content, context and flow." - I appreciate this on all counts. Indeed, people are different, and contribute different things to WP. Some are gnomes, some are brilliant prosaists, some are topic specialists, and some are cite-fascists.

The concept that statements *should be sourced has always been valid and will always continue to be. However, the concept that all statements *must be sourced is inaccurate, and I believe you now understand that asserting absolutist concepts, within an environment of collaboration, consensus, and open intelligence, presents only a destructive paradox.

In summary, just to get back to actually dealing with this particular article itself, my issue at present is that you accept that the expression "ethos of prosperity" is accurate, or if that is too much to ask, that you accept that the above expression is at least plausible, while yours —"ethos of idealism" —is not even English.

We can then move on to the issue of general editing concepts, patterns, and behaviour —both yours and mine. I am more than willing to accept your thesis that you have superiour concepts of sourcing, , but in doing so I require that you submit to my demonstrable capacity and near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization.

Indeed, if Wikipedia truly wanted to, in the name of "reliable" sourcing, reject intelligent thought process in article conceptualization, I would have been toast a long time ago. :-\ This is not to stop people from being sourcerors if they want to be, but that is quite different from being a DBAD violator with a certain notion of protocol or correctness about "reliability." I can tell that you aren't really the latter, but in light of your interaction with me, I need you to clarify your concepts a bit first. And yes, I am not short on irony. :-) -Stevertigo 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to like a good mental joust; I don't. You believe in your "near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization"; I don't. Talking about whether the ethos of this or the ethos of that is the right wording is wa-a-ay off base from the get-go. I like to build articles and thus the encyclopedia, and building means taking bricks and mortar from expert sources and fashioning them into structure as necessary for reading flow and comprehension. What expert source supplies you with "ethos of prosperity?" I can tell you the answer: none. A Google search for the two phrases "ethos of prosperity" + "American Dream" returned just two results, both mirrors of Wikipedia content from this article, reflecting words that you wrote. You've been making shit up! Let's agree to stick with established experts, okay? Experts who use the word ethos in this context most often equate "American Dream" and "American ethos". Other observers have decried a "consumer ethos", warned against a "Chinaskian ethos", and praised a "Puritan ethos".
So, how many times does it take to refer to WP:DBAD in talk page entries before somebody can safely assume that he is being called a dick? Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BN cont'd.

  • BN: "You seem to like a good mental joust; I don't." - We tend to take enjoyment from the things in which we have capability.
  • BN: "You believe in your "near-omniscient exactness in matters of conceptualization"; I don't." - I joke. Still your taking issue with my omniscience doesn't change the fact that your wording, "ethos of idealism," will never, can never, mean anything at all. It just doesn't actually make sense.
  • BN: "Talking about whether the ethos of this or the ethos of that is the right wording is wa-a-ay off base from the get-go." - Well, then why did you change it to an expression that qualifies as both meaningless and senseless?
  • BN: "I like to build articles and thus the encyclopedia, and building means taking bricks and mortar from expert sources and fashioning them into structure as necessary for reading flow and comprehension." - Your a builder, that's great. The wiki needs builders, and for the most part you are right in that articles (the body, rather) are built, not just written. I understand that well enough, but I'm more of an architect who likes to get his hands dirty.
  • BN: "What expert source supplies you with "ethos of prosperity?" - I can tell you the answer: none. [Google says..]. You've been making shit up!" Indeed, how is it then that this 'made up shit,' which I gave a certain degree of thought to (ethos of prosperity), is accurate and categorical to the concept, while yours ("ethos of idealism") is not even sensible? Consider that, before you claim sourced authority. In reality, the phrase I put together is Wikipedia's and not mine, and I did not write it, rather I assembled it from a basic concept cloud of what AD deals with: Freedom + prosperity is something that even you should be able to understand. And because the concept of linking freedom to prosperity is *probably not original to the United States, I made it a link, such as to deal with it at the prosperity article. For the record, I've been "making shit up" for years —some of it actually endures, and all of it gets the job done.
  • BN: "Let's agree to stick with established experts, okay? Experts who use the word ethos in this context most often equate "American Dream" and "American ethos". Other observers have decried a "consumer ethos", warned against a "Chinaskian ethos", and praised a "Puritan ethos." - Keep in mind that a lot of people who write about America and Americana know only that by espousing a particularly sokalistic concept of how wonderful the U.S. is, they can sell a lot of coffee-table books. Keep in mind also that the subject gets quickly into very qualitative and subjective territory, such that its more the "writers" —not the social scientists —that tend to get involved in dealing with it. So this is not rocket science, and there are no "established experts" in some imaginary academic field called "American-Dreamicology" —just a lot of waxadazical commentary that I tend to find unnecessary and therefore do not read. All I did was conceptualize it (accurately) for the lede (which is all I rede anyway), and you are taking issue with conceptualization itself. And not just mine, is it? If you really have an issue with the conceptual approach, try destroying the WP:CONCEPT thesis.
  • BN: "So, how many times does it take to refer to WP:DBAD in talk page entries before somebody can safely assume that he is being called a dick?" - That's a question only you can answer. -Stevertigo 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is from one of the essays/books you listed — emphasis and parenthetical comments mine:

  • "Crime and the American Dream," by Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, page 104 (anthology: Criminological theories:Bridging the Past to the Future, by Suzette Cote):
"In our use of the term "the American Dream," we refer to a broad cultural ethos (read "ethos") that entails a commitment to the goal of material success (read "prosperity [economic]"), to be pursued by everyone in society, under conditions of open, individual competition (read "freedom [economic]", with of course, by some great leap, an implied link to "freedom [social]," and competition ~ 'freedom to either succeed or fail').

They go on into interesting territory:

"The American Dream has both an evaluative and a cognitive dimension associated with it (again "ethos"). People are socialized to accept the desirability of pursuing the goal (read "indoctrination," "social identity (the very concept of which 'Tjafel and Turner' originated apparently)" →→ "nationalism") of material success ("prosperity" again), and they are encouraged to believe that the chances of realizing [cont'd..] the Dream ("the Dream" = read "mythos," that accompanies the "ethos") are sufficiently high (read "opportunity") to justify a continued commitment to this cultural goal (read "ethos" again). These beliefs and commitments (read "ethos" again) in many respects define what it means to be an enculturated member of our society (read "citizen"). The ethos (freebie) refers quite literally to the American dream...."

Not bad, actually. Nice find, even if its main topic is off-topic. Probably ideal actually. "Google" you say? Wanderful, wanderful, wanderful. -Stevertigo 05:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

More —emphasis and parenthetical comments mine:

  • Illusions of Opportunity: The American Dream in Question, by John E. Schwartz (anthology: America needs human rights, by Anuradha Mittal, Peter Rosset):
"The nation's creed asserts the moral equality of all. [..] A central component of this creed is called the American Ethos, or the American Dream (read "ethos ~ 'dream'"). Every American today (read "citizen") instinctively knows the ethos (read "indoctrination"): that every individual (read "democracy," "ubuntu") should be able to (read "ideal") get ahead and gain some measure of success (read "prosperity") through actions and means that are under his or her own control[1] (read "freedom"). The ethos (read "ethos", no more freebies for you) is that everyone who steadfastly practices certain practical values (read "work ethic," "education," "common sense," "goodwill") will find a place at the table (read "promise of opportunity")."
Ref: [1] Hochschild, Jennifer. "The Political Contingency of Public Opinion, or What Shall We Make of the Declining Faith of the Middle Class African Americans?," PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 27, no. 1 (March 1994): pg. 36."
  • Against the American Dream: Essays on Charles Bukowski, by Russell Harrison, deals largely with Bukowski's social criticism:
"The aims of this introduction are to introduce the salient factors of Bukowski's writing [..] the issue of social class, the critique of the American Dream and the critical analysis of work, as well as to note some important aspects of his career."

Harrison also appears to briefly put down (without much explanation) various socio-economic "ethos"-es (his misnomer for 'theories about socio-economic life and philosophy') both within the greater "American Dream" and distinct from it.

  • Ideology in America: Challenges to Faith, by Alan F. Geyer:

This book deals with certain ideologies in the context of belief. His usage of "ideology" appears to be broad, and encompasses territory for which "ethos" might better suffice, and in fact "ethos" doesn't seem to be in his vocabulary, except for the reference to "Puritan Ethos", which certainly qualifies, but apparently he does not consider any others. He appears to consider "ethos" to be historical (or rare/precious) concept, and instead uses "ideology" to refer to things current and relevant. Either he lacks an understanding of mythos or social personhood, or else he just doesn't want to go there because that gets into non-socio-political territory. Or (more likely), in his concepts, belief is the mythos and faith is the ethos (and therefore he deals with no other). -Stevertigo 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building with references

Here's to the building up of the lead section, and of the article, with expert references that are aligned with general scholarship on the topic. Gathering the sources together so far:

I hope that gives a greater depth and breadth to the article while remaining accurate and appropriately balanced. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Johnson, 2004" and do we care?

I take issue with this part of the introduction:

Text:
The presence of the American Dream has not historically helped the majority of minority race and lower class American citizens to gain a greater degree of social equality and influence. Instead, the American wealth structure has often been observed to sustain class differences in which well-positioned groups continue to be advantaged.
Reference:
Johnson, 2004, pp. 6–10. "The crucial point is not that inequalities exist, but that they are being perpetuated in recurrent patterns—they are not always the result of individual success or failure, nor are they randomly distributed throughout the population. In the contemporary United States, the structure of wealth systematically transmits race and class inequalities through generations despite deep-rooted belief otherwise."

This makes up almost half of the introduction, but who is this person exactly? This is not much of a citation - there is no article name or publication name given, and this "Johnson" fellow's credentials are unknown. Unless someone can augment the citation with more information to confirm it is reliable and noteworthy or find a different source entirely, I will remove this text from the article. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnson is Heather Beth Johnson, visible above this thread in the list of sources, and visible on the article at the Bibliography. The pages six to ten in her book cover more territory than just the quoted portion, and she is really saying what is represented in the introduction. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have made this connection reading the references, as Johnson is a common name, and the years cited in Notes and Bibliography do not match - this tends to suggest two different publications, unless a nonstandard citation format is being used here which I may be unfamiliar with. All that's visible in the Notes citation is a last name, a year, and page numbers in an unspecified publication.
That issue aside, what makes this particular author (a Ph.D assistant professor of sociology at Lehigh University) significant enough that half of this article's introduction consists of her views? What makes this book notable? It only scores about 800 hits on Google and does not appear to have been on any bestseller lists. Not to be exclusive, but I'm trying to keep undue weight in mind. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the 2006 year mistake—fixed. You're right that Johnson isn't the gray-haired sage, but she's succinct. I like Wikipedia sources where you don't have to read the whole book to piece it all together; I like the ones where a few sentences sum up an argument coherently. At any rate, other sources can be found saying the same basic things, so if I trolled the stacks for more reference books, the lead text would generally stay in place. If I swapped in some weightier authors for Johnson, most readers wouldn't know anything had happened. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I agree that it's best to use sources which don't require an in-depth investigation on the part of the reader to link them to the supported text. Thanks for fixing the citation. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

specifics

No mention of a white picket fence? No mention of a wife and 2 kids and a family dog? .froth. (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reference to Cullen for the quote from James Truslow Adams should be p. 4, not p. 6, in the first footnote.Debell (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the Quote

Despite what the Library of Congress citation says, the quote from the 1931 edition of the book is actually "a land in which life should be better richer and fuller for every man" -- not "everyone." I have the book in front of me, and it disappointed me to see the difference because I thought he was actually being progressive when I the LOC version. The Google Books snippet should confirm it. But I don't know how to change the citation, as Google Books doesn't provide a snippet large enough for the whole quote. Just the part of the every man/one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.110.69 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Should Of Mice and Men be included as an example in this article, per this edit? If so, how should it be sourced? Some discussion has taken place at User talk:2over0#American Dream. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should certainly not be included in the lede like that. If it bears discussion later in the article (which is quite possible) it should be sourced to a reliable secondary source discussing it.--Cúchullain t/c 05:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to the editor wishing to add this bit that it would help the article if some of these or these sources were used to establish the scholarly position on Steinbeck's portrayal of the American Dream in his book. The idea is sound enough to bear further investigation. Binksternet (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third Opinion

Having read the book myself, the American Dream is the central theme of it. However, whatever could be included about Of Mice and Men would only be a personal interpretation, which would constitute as WP:Original research. The detail as per the edit should not be included, but a brief mention (one or two sentences) of the book could be appropriate. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a year out of date, but I was taught at School that the whole point of the book is about the American dream so in theory there should be lots of decent sources on this interpretation.(Morcus (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Steinbeck is covered (see fn 11) with cite. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later 20th and 21st centuries

In this section there is not a legitimate source to base the theory that there is a ″lost of faith″ in the American dream. I have found an actual study conducted by Metlife [1]. In this section the focus should be on a new emerging definition of the American dream rather than the so called ″lost of faith in″ in it. Idugall (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MetLife study

Idugall has twice removed a Vanity Fair conclusion "that during the 1990s to the 2000s, an increasing number of people confess to having lost faith in the American Dream". Instead, the editor has been adding this rah-rah replacement:

Emersion of a New American Dream
In the past couple of decades, the American people have gradually made a conscious ideological shift of their perception of the American Dream. When the American Dream was first thought up by James Truslow Adams, in his 1931 book Epic of America, the vision was: “A land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” Although, the constant fluctuation of the economy has given Americans reason to cherish things other than financial stability. Metlife’s study shows that in today’s world there is a change in the definition of the American Dream. (Metlife Study of the American Dream. [2])

I have several problems with this replacement. One, it snuffs out the Vanity Fair bit which I think is deserving of mention. Any changes to the article should take the Vanity Fair conclusion in stride, not erase it. Two, the reference is hosted by MetLife, a non-neutral observer—they are not a magazine or newspaper. Three, the MetLife study analyzed only 2200 questionnaires. Four, the MetLife study can be used to show specific statistic conclusions such as the number of people who are less confident about the Medicare and Social Security systems, but in the text we are treated to, there is only the very optimistic conclusion. Any thorough perusal of that study will show that it gives ammunition to both sides of the argument—that an optimistic outlook is not indicated by its results. "Emersion"? How archaic. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I see where you are coming from I respectfully disagree. It was not my intention to completely dismiss the Vanity Fair article, but(Please Correct Me If I AM Wrong)I just did not see any hardcore facts and statistics to support your claim of "having lost faith" in the American Dream. Furthermore, if I took your idea about the American Dream "in stride" it would be a distinct contradiction to my contribution. Although, I do understand that the Metlife study has a small pool of participants, but my view: "is some is better than none." Right? Without the Metlife study my contribution would be an empty claim like yours appears to be. In conclusion, the way a study in perceived is purely personal, an eternal optimist would take the study with great joy and a cynic would take it with a grain of sand. To disregard my contribution for its utter fallacy and lack of evidence would be fine, but do not deny the readers a great view and source because of a personal vendetta of cynical nature. --Idugall (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources under discussion
Idugall, I have no personal vendetta. At Wikipedia, secondary sources such as newspapers and magazines are preferred, per the policy guideline at WP:SECONDARY. Between the commentary from David Kamp, the Vanity Fair writer, and conclusions made by MetLife based on their annual study, the Kamp opinion is preferred. The MetLife study, a primary source, can be used to bolster facts, not opinions.
What we do when faced with two conflicting sources is supply the reader with both. "Source 'A' says it is white; however, source 'B' says it is black." That general formulation is what I meant when I wrote "take the Vanity Fair conclusion in stride, not erase it."
Frankly, I am not impressed by the MetLife study. It states that 2,243 online surveys were completed, but then says only 1443 were in the United States. The numbers are too small to make sweeping conclusions, and the sample population is already skewed by the respondents being online, and by them having gone to MetLife's website. The study itself reveals some dark financial facts, and then uses those facts to assert that Americans will rely more on insurance in the future, including, I imagine, MetLife insurance. Following this pessimistic conclusion, the study jumps into unsupported optimism in its call to action, to get the government policymakers to make it easier for Americans to have insurance. The whole study appears to have a goal, an agenda, that cannot be ignored. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
we need to report the MetLife study, whether we agree or not. It is directly on topic, is recent, and was conducted by a leading polling firm and the methodology is solid (It was not conducted by the insurance company. they commissioned Penn, Schoen & Berland who designed the survey and conducted 2,243 online surveys among the U.S. general population in 2009. Online research is becoming standard these days because it allows more in-depth analysis than quickie phone interviews.Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can refer to specific numbers obtained from the report, but using its leap-of-faith conclusions is not adhering to a neutral point of view. The hard numbers are useful. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok Rjensen (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social mobility

Social mobility in the US is significantly lower than in a number of EU countries. American men born into the lowest income quintile are much more likely to stay there compared to similar men in the UK or Scandinavia.[1]

  1. ^ De Grauwe, Paul (2 July 2007). "Structural rigidities in the US and Europe". Retrieved 1 January 2010.

Quote: "Death of the American Dream

The strength and pride of America has traditionally been that it provides for a high level of social mobility. It is part of the “American Dream” in which the poorest of the poor can climb to the top of the social ladder in one generation. This dream has attracted millions of outsiders to the land of promise, away from old Europe, which was incapable of providing a future for the poor. The high social mobility has also worked as a “safety valve” that allows political acceptance of the high income inequality in the US. Finally, it has provided the basis for the extraordinary dynamics of the US economy. Developments of the last decades have shattered this American Dream. It now appears that many EU countries have created an environment in which it is significantly easier for the poor to climb the social ladder than it is in the US. Structural reforms will be necessary in the US if it wants to emulate the success of European countries in organising social mobility."

Maybe this aspect is worth further study.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but this article is on the "American Dream", which is a concept, not social mobility in the United States versus some other countries. The concept hasn't been all that tied to the reality of the situation, but it certainly has a life of its own. I don't think that specific article is all that useful here, as its comparison is too limited (the "several EU countries" are actually "the 4 EU countries in Scandanavia plus the UK").--Cúchullain t/c 16:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence about social mobility because it does not belong in the lead paragraph --DavisJune (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion social mobility is a core part of the American Dream and should stay in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I'm not opposed to talk of social mobility in the article, but it stands out like a sore thumb in the lead. The american dream at its core it just that, a dream or a concept. Discussion of whether it is obtainable is fine, but it shouldn't be in the introduction of the concept. --DavisJune (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social mobility is the key component to the American Dream. Try this article in The Economist: "The American dream is simple: work hard and move up." The New York Times published an article, "Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs", including a quote from John Bridgeland about today's issues, "...a lack of mobility—a lack of access to the American Dream."
There are many more sources, but these are quite enough to establish the critical, central importance of social mobility to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments again. I'm not against the social mobility information, it just doesn't have a place in the lead. Any criticisms of the American Dream should go in the base of the article not the lead. Social mobility is just one part of a concept. The American Dream should be defined and then viewpoints should go afterwards-- below the split. --DavisJune (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your point is that the material should go in the article body rather than in the lead section, why did you delete it rather than move it to the article body? Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, I asked you to do that multiple times. It was your piece. --DavisJune (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine? It was added by TheTruthiness in this edit. Your act of deleting it rather than moving it lost you the moral high ground. The article should, of course, conform to the guideline at WP:LEAD asking us to put new material in the article body, saving the lead section for a summary of what is described below. Moving the bit from TheTruthiness would have helped your case considerably. Now that this stiff little discussion has taken place it is clear that the bit from TheTruthiness should not only be put into the article body but also expanded with the book sources in the bulleted list above. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, clearly I got you confused with the other user. Moral ground? I'm sure you have that covered. Why anyone would look for moral ground on wikipedia I do not know, but please-- let's stay on topic. You're confused in that you seem to believe I was looking to build a case, however I am not. Please read my comments before you respond to them. Everything that you've said, I've already stated. I have no issue with the information presented. The problem was the placement. There was already a section for criticism. I pointed this out and directed the user to it. It is simply not that difficult and there is no reason that it should be. By all means, feel free to acknowledge and expand on those points. I would suggest nothing less. --DavisJune (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Dream&oldid=481709601"