Talk:M-shaped society

NPOV issue
I know nothing about the subject, but the text of the article seems to advocate a particular point of view. It should be made more neutral by providing other opinions. Realkyhick 06:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems ridiculous to me. It does clearly state it is the theory of a particular writer, and is therefore totally valid in my view as a description of that theory. Theories by their nature are not neutral. It's like claiming the article on communism isn't neutral and should equally promote capitalist alternative! - 88.97.160.70

The article should nonetheless be written from a neutral point of view. At the very least, the style should be written to make it explicit that the source of the "non-neutral" content is objectively attributable to the source. That is NPOV. This quote, for example, does not cite the originator of the theory, but instead appears to be the opinion of the author of the Wikipedia article:

What was worse, the upward social ladder seems to have disappeared - opportunities and fair competition become fewer and fewer.

To use the analogy of the anonymous commenter above, it would not be NPOV to say: "The bourgeois is inferior to the worker." It would be more acceptable to say, "In communist society, the bourgeois was viewed inferior to the worker." Or even better, "Stalin claimed in his address to the Politburo in 1932, on such-and-such date that the bourgeos is inferior to the worker."

The article is quite poorly written and would require a complete rewrite to make it conform to NPOV. This being said, Realkyhick is wrong in asserting that other opinions should be added. In fact, only the attributions would need to be make explicit to restore neutrality to this article.

Alteris (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've slightly edited the format of this article: to have a section that is the same as the title of the whole page? That's weird......


 * By creating a ""theory"" section, I hope to make it easier for readers to see what are facts and what are assertions in the theory. Of course, this page is still not void of POV, but that's a start......


 * Also, I boldly edited the title of this part of the talk page: this way it might be clearer to see what we're discussing about. 石川 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)