Talk:Snob

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Social Work Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Votes for Deletion: Concensus Keep

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Snob. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 05:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They didn't like the subject. --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In their defense, the current treatment is actually a terribly poor treatment of classism, written as though the English had invented it, developed it, and foisted it upon all the other peoples of the world. 'Snob' is a Britishism and the article (if it shouldn't just be a wiktionary entry) deserves a treatment of the development of the concept of snob from its origin as a "cobbler" to its present sense, but all the dreck about classism (especially the ahistorical bits) should be moved to another article. — LlywelynII 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word history of snob

There is no evidence that snob is derived from sine nobilitate. This is popular etymology. According to various dictionaries, snob is derived from an 18th-century word meaning cobbler/shoemaker. That is the earliest written occurence of snob.

...demonstrating that at times OED is as confused as Wikipedians. --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this word was invented by wikipedia no one in the world are bigger snobs than them. Their even deleting discussions posts and trying to label them as original research. Its not like I'm editing the damn article, the talk page was made to discuss the article to begin with. Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology should feature in the article: Apparently its current use is a complete inversion of the original intent. Per Etymology Online:

1781, "a shoemaker, a shoemaker's apprentice," of unknown origin. It came to be used in Cambridge University slang c.1796 for "townsman, local merchant," and by 1831 it was being used for "person of the ordinary or lower classes." Meaning "person who vulgarly apes his social superiors" arose 1843, popularized 1848 by William Thackeray's "Book of Snobs." The meaning later broadened to include those who insist on their gentility, in addition to those who merely aspire to it, and by 1911 had its main modern sense of "one who despises those considered inferior in rank, attainment, or taste." — LlywelynII 01:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Hat Illustration

The straw hat illustration, with the caption "American style straw hat. Complex social rules can determine when an occasion is sufficiently informal so that a man may correctly wear this hat." I deleted this, which confuses snobbery with etiquette. Someone may want to insert the image there. --Wetman 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Inverted snobbery"

There's no section on inverted snobbery - surely a serious omission.--80.6.118.162 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...your assignment, should you care to accept it..." --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I hadn't spoken up. Now we've got: "Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites, effectively the opposite of snobbery." How is this? Suddenly a repulsion has been substituted for an attraction. This is not what's at work, is it? If society is not so much "up-down" now, as it is "in-out" or "cool-uncool", only the object of imitation has changed. Not repulsion replacing attraction. I suppose this would count as "original". But Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites' strikes me as a highly original substitution of repulsion for attraction... --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smug

Surely there is no reason for Smug to redirect to snobbery, they are after all completely different things.

Just fix the redirect at Smug, which is an adjective; it should be deleted altogether. --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Snobbery?

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has 'inverted snobbery' but there's no mention of 'reverse snobbery' which is the title of the Wiki entry. Stephen A 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

air force?

why the air force? i think that this statement is very presuming of a lot of people. most people i know in the air force are by no means snobby nor do they just agree with their superiors to get ahead.

"the path to advancement from below is often eased for those who most whole-heartedly adopt the point-of-view of their superiors" ---this statement is untrue about the air force becuase anyone who knows about the air force knows that they have a set system for promotions and advancement and it has nothing to do with someone agreeing with their higher-ups.

Yes, in the United States Air Force lots of gay black Socialists make it to the very top! --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lmao. good point.

One can be a snob without aspiring to belong to a certain class of people. A snob can be a really wealthy person that just lokks down on poor people for example.

Citation request in first sentence

At the time of writing, the first sentence of this article is pretty much a definition which is backed up by most of the dictionaries I have seen. Why then is a citation needed and could one be provided without having to rewrite the defnition to closely match (and therefore possibly plagiarise) a online dictionary? Crimperman (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is needed because the definition sucks. Why sucks? For an extremal example, do we call a pharaoh a snob? `'Míkka >t 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an alternative definition then? Crimperman (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition is too sweeping. A billionaire is superior to a pauper in money, a general is superior to a captain in rank, but perceived or actual superiority doesn't make a snob. (A 'snob' is not a synonym for anyone not democratic egalitarian.) The term 'snob' is meaningless without various existing systems for contrasting peoples merits. Rather a snob is one who rises beyond their level of competence and is obliviously and jealously proud of it, an ignoble "noble"; vanity might be the prime attribute -- it's not enough to prosper while grasping the shadow and losing the substance, rather the snob is a living advertising campaign promoting an adulterated product. Scheming Basil Fawlty is a snob, but clueless King George III was not. Many snobs are climbers, but there are born snobs, as some that inherit undeservedly or unworthily.

Another problem with the current definition is that it only considers one metric at a time; if the social world was a single ladder, one either is or is not on a higher rung. But to be "noble" encompasses many ladders, taste, clothes, appreciation, understanding, education, ancestry, position, property, wealth, obligation, duty, good works, etc. Climbing some may prevent climbing others, nobody climbs them all. The snob either successfully climbs or hangs on to some ladders, but is unable to discern, let alone ascend, the ones that matter.

I've deliberately stuck with (and recommend) English examples and attributes, because they should be less contentious than exploring the snob-relevant metrics of recent and lively cultures. --AC (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop

How can they be includedd in reverse snobbery? With their 40 inch rims, sparkly silver bling and gold teef...♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer program

Should the categorizing computer program be listed? : http://www.allisons.org/ll/MML/Notes/SNOB/ Kelly.terry.jones (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this page (as it is a separate topic), but if you think that the program is notable, then feel free to create a new page for it. --Neil (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be insufficient?

The sentence:

"Snobbery surfaced more strongly as the structure of the society changed, and the bourgeoisie had the possibility to imitate aristocracy. Snobbery appears when elements of culture are perceived as belonging to an aristocracy or elite, and some people (the snobs) feel that the mere adoption of the fashion and tastes of the elite or aristocracy is sufficient to include someone in the elites, upper classes or aristocracy."

doesn't make sense. Wouldn't snobs believe that mere adoption of fashion and tastes is insufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.101.30 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems offensive

The general tone of this article seems to be 'inflammatory', or maybe an attack on snobbery in general. Although I am not entirely sure on what this issue would be considered under Wikipedia policy, or indeed, anything at all, I do believe this fails to have a neutral point of view. Particularly egregious are some of the links in the "See Here" section, which can be seen as outright offensive. If anything, it would be nice to have an more experienced editor go through this article, and give their opinion on it. If I am incorrect in my position, feel free to remove the NPOV tag. Alice Margatroid (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to worry about the lack of neutrality, considering that few people will self-identify as a snob. It's generally an offensive label put on others, so I think this isn't an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltm mn (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A snob is a person who believes there is a correlation between social status and human worth."

That's misleading and not really defining. A snob can of course believe so, but far more people do believe this tacitly without being actual snobs. Snobs may actually believe something to the contrary. Not that social status or personal status determines worthiness, but that one can somehow gain social status by deceiving others with status symbols and denigrating those perceived to have lower status. --41.145.159.218 (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible second sentence

I don't understand the second sentence: "The term also refers to a person who judges, stigmatizes others and believes that some people are inherently inferior to others result from the perception of opinions, values, intellect, creativity, talent, wealth, occupation, education, ancestry, ethnicity, relationship, power, religion, physical strength, class, taste, hobby, prestige, beauty, nationality, and fame." It's uncited so I will remove it if no-one clarifies it.--greenrd (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like they were trying to get a point across regarding how the word snob may be defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. <ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snob/ref> Under the "snob for English Language Learners" it refers closer to what was written in this sentence. I'd recommend re-writing it though and possibly changing the sentence to read "Snob also refers to a person who feels superiority over those from lower social classes, education levels, or other social areas." and then cite it with the definition of the actual word. Azlizc (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snob. 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/20050514075848/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0206.epstein.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverse snobbery" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Reverse snobbery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 11 § Reverse snobbery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Inverted snob" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Inverted snob and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 21 § Inverted snob until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan snobs?

What historical basis is there for claiming that the ancient Spartans practised a 19th-century concept in the 5th century BC. Were they time travellers?

Secondary point: why does this article not mention W. M. Thackeray, his Book of Snobs, and his literal invention of the term 'snob' as used in its present form? StrangeBanana (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]