Talk:Three-component theory of stratification

IMO this division is pretty arbitrary and depends on the particular historical period. Why "economical relationship" is the touchstone? Why not religion? Say, what's wrong with the following two-component stratification? IMO it will work pretty well in ancient Egypt.
 * religious class.
 * status class, based on other criteria, other than religion.

And party class is so naive a notion. Why not sports fan class? Mikkalai 09:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
I have tagged this article for cleanup because it needs to be rewritten primarily using our own words, rather than relying so heavily on direct quotes. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples listed for forms of wealth
These are all tangible assets, it is intangible property that most differentiates those who are rich/wealthy and those who are not (stocks/bonds, dividends, private pensions, funds that incentivise long term deposit of the means of exchange,) especially when considering the privileged tax status that this form of property holds (i.e. they attract little.) Thus this should be changed.

81.147.40.55 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiple policy violations, essay not encyclopedia article
This is an original research essay, not an encyclopedia article.

It violates multiple wiki policies.

The t lede 1st sentence does not define the subject.

The lede 1st paragraph does not summarize the body.

Nothing is sourced properly.

Almost no sentence is supported by sources. MBUSHIstory (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)