Talk:Commoner

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

Page move[edit]

Earlier today User:Ufim moved Common People to Common People (song) with the comment "This is not the main lexical meaning of the term"

Here were my reasons for opposing the move on Ufim's talk page:

  • it's confused over 50 incoming links that were to the song
  • there's no reason for a phrase such as "Common people" to be capitalised as "Common People" (in fact it shouldn't be), and the two articles could co-exist with hatnotes to cross-reference them. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)
  • the term "common people" is not well-defined in English; it usually has overtones of class but is basically just a conjunction of an adjective (that can be applied to many objects with a potential meaning of class) and a noun; it can also mean the people as a whole "a common people with a common destiny". For example, the article on socialist William Morris doesn't refer to "common people" (only "common life"), and even when it did the meaning isn't quite what you seem to want. Basically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Perhaps the article "People" gives the wrong impression, but that's what most of the uses in your edit refer to. (See also the dismbiguation page Class war for capitalisation examples.)
  • There are already articles for phrases with clearer meaning, such as lumpenproletariat, hoi polloi, plebs, commoners. Surprisingly there doesn't seem to be for the history of the concept demos.
  • Certainly the song is not the prior meaning, but if you do a web search for "common people" you will find the song is the most common usage online.
  • the term "commons" does not refer to a group of people as claimed in the lead you wrote, and "rabble" usually has class connotations but is also not synonymous.

If you Ufim can provide references where the term is used in English in a defined way, then I would support the article creation, but not under the current title which wrongly capitalises the second word. --Cedderstk 10:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move to "Common people"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Common People moved to common people, song article unchanged  Skomorokh, barbarian  11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Common PeopleCommon people — The new content here (much of which is already available in other articles) should not have second capital, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). The page that had existed here for 4+ years was moved without discussion to make way for this unreferenced article. --Cedderstk 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support a change in the capitalisation of this article title, but oppose moving Common People (song). The two should not be disambiguated by capitalisation alone. PC78 (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support since the article is wrongly titled at present (Common People is not a breed of dog), but oppose retitling the song article. We should not create more articles that differ only by capitalisation. Sussexonian (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the song should not sit at this location. Either this redirects to the renamed version of this current article, or it should be a dab page. I will note that commoner should be linked in a dab page. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support moving this article towards 'Common people' and oppose moving 'Common People (song)' at all. 'Common People' (with a capital P) should be a re-direct towards 'Common people' Flamarande (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation removed as "unreliable"[edit]

Apparently an editor considered the following to be an unreliable source and removed my addition:

Andersen, Margaret L.; Taylor, Howard F. (2010). Sociology: The Essentials (6th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 181. ISBN 0495812234. 

The message read, "unreliable source: undergraduate textbook". This seems like dubious reasoning. How is a university textbook an unreliable source, regardless of whether it is for undergraduates? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate textbooks have a pedagogical rather than a scholarly interest, and regularly obscure the scholarship in favour of teaching effectiveness. It isn't a RS for a scholarly term. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:GNG. Undergraduate textbooks are perfectly suitable for secondary sources. This isn't a scholarly journal, so your criteria is perhaps too rigorous. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
See WP:TERTIARY. Textbooks aren't secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, although to me it is bordering on the absurd how constrictive the requirements for citations have become. RJH (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)



Common peopleCommoner – Per common names. It would be more likely to be said that Prince William married a commoner rather than that he married a common person, which would have pejorative connotations. TFD (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. "Common people" is a rare variant of what commoners call "commoners". Quigley (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support As I said in the AFD, it should be called Commoners. Dream Focus 12:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I agree with what TFD is saying – the word common does have negative connotations when its used to describe an individual man or woman. But since the 20th century it actually has +ve connotations when used in the plural as in common people or common man where "man" refers to humanity. On the other hand the word commoners now has –ve or at best humourous connotations when used in the plural. All the scholarly sources I added use the phrase "common people" not commoners. As do experts in the use of words like vice President Wallace in his famous speech. The word "commoner" is maybe used more often in games and genre fiction that trys to evoke a medieval atmsoshere, but otherwise IMO us common people use the phrase "common people" much more often to e.g. Jarvis Cocker in the "common people" song. Or take for example the talented local writer DreamFocus. His user page is a treasure trove of interesting stories and reflections but he doesn't once use the word "commoner". Whereas the phrase “common people” occurs in the excellent morality tale Snotty Elitist Deletionist and the even more classic Heroic inclusionist against the evil deletionist hordes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commoner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)