| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
American middle class article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | American middle class was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I removed the nonsense of listing musician, artist and writer as upper middle class professions. That is utterly ridiculous and laughable. Those professions have always been associated with beggars and traveling bards. The percentage of artists and musicians, and to a lesser extent writers, who "make it big" and earn upper-middle-class money is infinitesimal. Where do you think the "starving artist" stereotype comes from?... Believe me, it's the rule, not the exception. Most musicians do not have a record deal and a platinum-selling album, and most artists don't have their paintings hanging in the private collections of eccentric millionaires. *rolls eyes* Succubus MacAstaroth ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
"Ubber" Rich?
The word should be "uber" which is german for "above". Can some one change the table -- it is actually a picture. Is that normal on Wikipedia? Also "hundreds" was spelled "hunderds". mattelfesso ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the table/image should be removed entirely until it is cleaned up substantially -- it is rife with spelling errors and the terminology is unclear. The data should also be summarized as a table, not as a picture of a table. Gunnk ( talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that the lower-middle class and the working class share the following in common:
- substantial size (these two classes put together would comprise the majority of the public)
- substantial amount of work actually performed (both per person and in the aggregate)
- substantial level of work skill
- low level of work autonomy
- low level of job security
- low level of financial security
The major difference is that the lower-middle class may or may not have a comfortable lifestyle whereas the working class would definitely not, but they would share the low level of financial security. Any comment? 69.140.164.142 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting observations! Life-styles vary considerably between different households in the lower middle class. The lower middle class overlaps with both the upper middle and working class. Thus, some lower middle class households, say two grade school teachers, may have considerable job and financial security. Yet, others may not. Dennis Gilbert points out that those at the bottom of the lower middle class are almost indistinguishable from those in the working class-so there is definitely some truth to your observations. Generally speaking, lower middle class employees have considerably more autonomy than working class employees as they are "hired to think" versus being hired to simply accomplish routine tasks (get the coffe, copy papars, etc...). Of all the social classes the LMC may actually be the most difficult to describe as it so diverse and large. Regards, Signature brendel 06:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked some questions about the use of DH's in the examples given in this article, but it was deleted. Why is that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.87.185 ( talk) 15:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I just jumped to this article via random Wikilink. I'm sorry, but it needs quite some cleanup. Very any things are repetitive (Example: "Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income-earner households having incomes in the high 5-figure range[2][6][11]. Class members usually hold college degrees and often hold graduate degrees.[2][12]"). Sometimes words are missing ("While [the] concept remains largely ambiguous"). There also seems to be quite some confusion about single- and dual income households vs. higher- and lower middle class. If there are varying opinions, each should be presented individually, not all mingled together. I'd help, but this is not a topic I'm particularly interested or knowledgeable about, sorry. I'll only fix clear language errors as I encounter them. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Followup: Sources are not very good either, and many links are broken. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so there was a copy edit mistake, thank you for fixing it. As for the presentation of opinion, they are all presented; the article, of anything clears up the confusion that may exsist between single vs. dual earner & lower vs. upper middle class household - that is it reflects current thought that they are not be confused and that as a result of difference in the # of earners, household income does not always accurately reflect class status. How are the sources not very good? It uses two of the most common - if not the most common - contemporary class models. Regards,
Signature
brendel 09:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Several sources seem to be prepared by a think tank. Think tanks are not usually the best available sources - academic textbooks and refereed publications are. And the links are remotely weird. The first one has a very unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors, but points to PBS. The third one likewise has an unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors again, but refers to a non-existing page at
[1]. The 4th one has a working link, but is cited under the wrong title (the actual title is "One more social security quibble: Who is Middle Class?"). All of these three miss supplementary information like author and date of publication. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, not all sources are academic publications, but you have to consider how they are used. The newspaper article from the Christian Science Monitor, for example, is used to describe the exsitance of a "quibble" over what is middle class - clearly if there wasn't major reputable newspapers wouldn't publish it. The main concepts in the article, however, are taken from scholarly publications, not think tanks nor newspapers. As for source formatting, thanks for the pointers - I'll fix those problems (as a matter of fact, though not required on WP, I may convert all sources to using APA style). Thanks,
Signature
brendel 13:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the CSM as a source in general (although this is only an editorial, hence a rather weak source - editorials are opinions of usually just a single editor). Yes, APA style (or any particular style) are not required. But at least the core elements have to be correct. I've updated the CSM item. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- True, not all sources are academic publications, but you have to consider how they are used. The newspaper article from the Christian Science Monitor, for example, is used to describe the exsitance of a "quibble" over what is middle class - clearly if there wasn't major reputable newspapers wouldn't publish it. The main concepts in the article, however, are taken from scholarly publications, not think tanks nor newspapers. As for source formatting, thanks for the pointers - I'll fix those problems (as a matter of fact, though not required on WP, I may convert all sources to using APA style). Thanks,
Signature
brendel 13:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Several sources seem to be prepared by a think tank. Think tanks are not usually the best available sources - academic textbooks and refereed publications are. And the links are remotely weird. The first one has a very unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors, but points to PBS. The third one likewise has an unlikely name, refers to Drum Majors again, but refers to a non-existing page at
[1]. The 4th one has a working link, but is cited under the wrong title (the actual title is "One more social security quibble: Who is Middle Class?"). All of these three miss supplementary information like author and date of publication. --
Stephan Schulz (
talk) 09:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so there was a copy edit mistake, thank you for fixing it. As for the presentation of opinion, they are all presented; the article, of anything clears up the confusion that may exsist between single vs. dual earner & lower vs. upper middle class household - that is it reflects current thought that they are not be confused and that as a result of difference in the # of earners, household income does not always accurately reflect class status. How are the sources not very good? It uses two of the most common - if not the most common - contemporary class models. Regards,
Signature
brendel 09:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with any of the issues, leave a comment after the specific issue and I'll be happy to discuss/agree with you. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.
Needs inline citations:
- "Further research also suggests that working class parents emphasize conformity, traditional gender roles, and the adherence to external standards in their children, such as being neat and clean and "[believing] in strict leadership." (Gilbert, 1998)" This needs to be converted to an inline citation, preferably including page number if from a book.
- "Most ideas that find their way into the cultural mainstream… are crafted by a relative elite: people who are well educated, reasonably well-paid, and who overlap, socially and through family ties, with at least the middling levels of the business community—in short, the professional middle class."
- "The parade [of income earners with height representing income] suggest that [the] relationship between the distribution of income and the class structure is… blurred in the middle… we saw dual-income working class marchers looking down on single-income upper-middle class marchers. In sum, the class structures as we have defined it… does not exactly match the distribution of household income."
- "To this day, the professional middle class in the United States holds the world record for having the largest homes, most appliances and most automobiles."
Other issues:
- "A study by Brookings Institution in June 2006 revealed that middle-income neighborhoods have dropped 17% from 1970 to 2000.[clarify]" Address the tag.
This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 16:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Review: Failed
Unfortunately, since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference to Dental Hygienists in the "Working Class Majority" section should be changed/removed.
Dental hygienists aren't paid to share their thoughts and ideas? That is absurd. Hygienists diagnose patients, create and administer treatment plans, interpret x-rays, advise dentists, etc. Their role in a patient's oral health care can be just as important as a Dentist's. Of course, probably the only thing that the author remembers is the teeth-scraping part. I mean, that's the part I'd remember, too, but it's only half of what's going on while you're in that chair.
Dental Hygienists work under close supervision? Has the author of this passage ever been to see a Hygienist? Are the Hygienist and the Dentist ever in the room at the same time? The person that works with the Dentist is called a Dental Assistant. In general, Hygienists see patients independently. Actually, all of these "working class" traits apply to a Dental Assistant. Maybe someone could make that switch in the article?
I graduated from a Dental Hygiene program this May and now I'm making about $60,000 a year in an area where the average annual income is less that $30,000. You can be a Hygienist in California and make six figures. This is just not a good example of the "working class majority" described in this article. I don't "follow the Dentist's instructions." In most cases he follow mine!
Working Class should not redirect to middle class. They are two very different things. And by directing them to the same page it makes the article non-neutral point of view on subjects such as class struggle and communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.212 ( talk) 21:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
We need a new section on the history of the middle class. For instance, it could talk about the massive growth in the middle class after world war two. 163.1.146.77 ( talk) 14:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
(same comment I left on
Talk:Social class in the United States)
The image caption for
File:A monument of working class.JPG, currently used in the lead, includes "A monument to the working and supporting classes...". That description is incorrect. The Mechanics Monument (originally known as the Donahue Memorial Fountain) was commissioned by James Mervyn Donahue in memory of his father, James Donahue, founder of
Union Iron Works. (sources:
1,
2,
3,
4,
etc.) It was dedicated to mechanics. (sources:
1,
2,
inscription) The monument isn't honoring the entire "working" and supporting classes (What does supporting class mean?). That being said, I'm not sure it really belongs in the lead (or article) considering it's not related to a specific social class. Unless someone reasonably objects, I'll replace it in the next day or so.
APK
is ready for the tourists to leave 23:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Can the table using ubber be corrected to uber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snjmom ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
How much of these income data are skewed to the lower end by retirees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.128.141 ( talk) 05:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing on the history of "a large and strong" middle class? It's ups and downs, nor those causes?
section History has only: Main article: Social class in American history ...which has nothing on that.
1928, 1880, 1967-1978 2008 are those dates historically significant? From the 1830s until the 1930s, outside of family farms, the American middle class was (again) small and limited to shop owners and specialists. Then came the Wagner Act of 1935, mandating unions when 51 percent of workers voted for them. The Social Security Act. Minimum wage and maximum hour laws. Child labor laws. The government as employer of last resort through the WPA, CCC, etc.
Yet the entire article only mentions unions once: "The reduced size of the share of aggregate share of income, both pre and after tax, of the middle class has been attributed to the reduced bargaining power of wage earning employees, caused by the decline of unions; a lessening of government redistribution;" Nice that "size of the share of aggregate share of income," something tangible and trackable, even if indirectly, is used here.
In the entire history of civilization, outside of a small mercantilist class and the very few skilled tradesmen who'd managed to organize in guilds (the earliest unions) like the ancient Masons, a large and strong middle class was an aberration, certainly not something static nor to be taken for granted, as this article seems to imply.
Overall this article seems to be too foofoo, to be talking around the subject as if it were not tangible, had no history, is not measurable, has no ups and downs, is vague and static, etc, all a matter opinion, as if it really didn't exist, just kind of some elite academic's term, a matter of opinion. While precise definitions may differ, nobody is claiming these things are immeasurable or unmentionable as their lack or void seems to imply. These voids give the impression that the subject is somehow silly, un-meaty, or unreal.
--
67.125.107.124 (
talk) 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford
From the article:
... contemporary social scientists have put forward several, more or less congruent, theories on the American middle class. Depending on class model used, the middle class may constitute anywhere from 25% to 66% of households.
It stretches credulity to accept that models with so much variance in their most important objective measure should be called "reasonably congruent" (whatever that means).
In the case of this article, "Neutral Point Of View" requires a significantly wider representation of perspectives, making clear that the contemporary (canonical?) U.S. academic interpretation of "middle class" is, though perhaps well-anchored, nevertheless essentially an arbitrary concept.
A neutral approach would make some attempt to contrast popular perceptions (polling, mentions in non-academic books and the electronic media) with academic dicta (professional books and journals, including at least one or two non-U.S. sources).
A useful exposition would further discuss the history of the concept in various guises, including particularly the concepts of the bourgeoisie, the mercantile class and the aristocracy as seen in (at least) pre-1789 and post-Napoleonic Europe, along with some mention of predecessor concepts such as Hoi polloi.
Lacking anything like the above, this article presents naive platitudes in a genuinely misleading way, which I maintain is not a necessary outcome of the Wikipedia process -- even as it operates on subjects which, like this one, are difficult to pin down. Dratman ( talk) 04:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
A caption says "Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles". There are five quintiles. There are four quartiles. I'm not sure which was intended here. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, does the embeded graphic: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/United_States_Class_Structure_Comparison%2C1984-2014.jpg Count as original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.41 ( talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am suspicious that it is, especially because references were copied wholesale from another established table in the article. I can't believe the exact same set of references applies. I have removed this graphic as well as the OR tag (it was the wrong one and misplaced by the way). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Quality of the Article
The quality of this article is low. For example:
- This text doesn't discuss Wealth vs Income.
- This text doesn't reference Piketty _Capital in the 21st Century_, which is pretty much required reading for discussing this subject.
- Income is highly volatile over a person's and household's lifecycle. The idea that class should be defined by income is relatively silly. Unless you want to use some sort of lifetime weighted average income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.142.105.226 ( talk) 08:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Thomaswagner: You added a POV cleanup tag to a section of this article recently, but the reason for this is unclear. Is there some kind of bias in this section that needs to be corrected? Jarble ( talk) 01:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Time sensitive information like incomes need the year.There is alot of OR that 'updates' the article using 2006 data. OR needs to go or be rewritten so its clear what contributions are from each source as to minimize OR based on primary sources. I think a model for how to post this kind of research is in the spirit of XYZ states the middle class consists of the 15 to 50 percentile (references). In 20XX Census data indicates this corresponds to incomes of $xxxx to $xxxxx (census ref). This seems in line with the research accepted in other articles Mrdthree ( talk) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The "Household income distribution" has a chart which shows the distribution of the % of population in Income brackets across the top with detail for each bracket showing the Income range.
This is fine unless you actually add up the bogus data and see the total population DOES NOT = 100% but 160.5%!
This discredits all the information as perhaps being not only out of date, but inaccurate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgorbas ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on American middle class. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623090832/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.30/19-bankruptcy.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p16.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h13.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505172648/http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf to http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf
- Added
{{ dead link}}tag to http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/fisher/03012006.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American middle class. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214003616/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new01_001.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new01_001.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630005924/http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm to http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/hhinc/new06_000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on American middle class. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713020535/http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/07/11/dean/index.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h13.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714000042/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0605-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0605-01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The last major section of the article (the one on "squeeze") is full of grammatical errors, to the point that every third or fourth sentence makes no sense. I would fix it, but I can't figure out what the sentences are trying to say, so I don't know how to fix them. Can a fluent English speaker that understands the main points of this paragraph please correct its grammar? Thanks.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American middle class. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420194514/http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2007/1/2007_1_23.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2007/1/2007_1_23.shtml
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121171136/http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/06poverty_booza.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/06poverty_booza.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- 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.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi wikipedia people,
Was looking for what i could see here while working on a project.
So it seems, this is a pretty good article, but probably is due for an update?
It has been a long time since 2008 and the world has changed a lot. Probably alterations to the article might be needed thanks to that.
Additionally, it is probably too early as of writing this but something may be worth saying regarding the pandemic, so that could be the new "this is ongoing" part at the end to replace 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.232.184.147 ( talk) 23:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics