Talk:Status paradox

Notability
Googling gave 16 hits, none of them relevant. Scirus yielded sources for an unrelated paradox "status paradox (Avison et al. (1999)): low status for IT", I'll see what I can dig up. Paradoctor (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Googling gave me 1,180 hits. Are we using the same system? Silver  seren C 21:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly related to my searching for "status paradox" classes mutually exclusive, rather than "status paradox" alone. ;) For Google Scholar and Scirus I used "status paradox" alone, and only got a handful of irrelevant links. From what I've seen, there may two or three status paradoxes which might be disambiguated from here, but nothing supporting the current text of the article. Paradoctor (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work so far, but the generalization in the first sentence is still WP:OR and needs to go. If we can agree on that, I have no problem with retracting my nomination. Paradoctor (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What should it be changed to? Or should it just be deleted outright? Silver  seren C 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Terminate with extreme prejudice. As per my declaration of intent below, I'll write a new lede. Paradoctor (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

All instances of a notable generic concept of "status paradox"?
The concept of "status paradox of migration" seems well established in the literature. It is not clear to me whether that is also true for the other cases of status paradoxes described in this article. It is also not clear to me that these various status paradoxes are all instances of a notable generic concept of "status paradox" as defined in the lede. Unfortunately that definition is so incomprehensible that I can't make out how it relates to the kinds of status paradox described in the various sections; shouldn't the notion of (ascribed?) social status play a role in the definition? --Lambiam 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it probably should, we just need the right reference in order to do that. I fully admit that the lead should be written better, i'm just not entirely sure how to write it well. If you feel that you can make it better, go ahead and do so. Silver  seren C 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I volunteer. I'll post something this evening. Paradoctor (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede
Ok, I KISS&#8203;ed it, is the lede ok for everyone? Paradoctor (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It'll work. I switched out the first few words because the title of the article has to be in the lead in bold. Generally, it has to be within the first five words. Silver  seren C 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to avoid inventing a new category of paradoxes called "status paradox". I think we can solve this by moving the article to something like Paradoxes involving "status" or Paradoxes involving medical or social status.
 * "has to be in the lead in bold": I couldn't find anything to that effect in WP:BOLDTITLE, could you tell me where it says that? Paradoctor (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Most commonly, the article's subject is stated as early as possible in the first sentence, and placed in boldface"
 * The first line there. Anyways, it looks a lot better, though I oppose the re-naming. Those would just confuse the matter. For now, it should stay where it is. Silver  seren C 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok by me, but don't say I didn't warn you. ;)
 * "Most commonly": Not really the same as "has to", but as I just said, as long as no forcers turn up, I'll follow you. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...I think I take offense to being compared to Darth Vader. >_> Yes, it says most commonly, but the exceptions are ones like the example there. This article has a clear-cut name, so we should put it in the lead, there's no reason not to. As for the renaming, we can always do it later if we feel like it's necessary. I just don't want to do anything drastic at the moment. This article has the likelihood of turning into a disambiguation page, but the subsections are not long enough nor well-referenced enough individually yet to be able to split them off into their own pages. So they have to stay conglomerated here for now.  Silver  seren C 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)