Talk:Mob rule

Untitled

I'm not an expert on this topic, but this article seems to imply a very spefic sense of "mob rule" (cf. the Tianmen paragraph). I put a POV message on top, in the hope that someone with more knowledge wants to sort this article out a bit. -- till we *) 15:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did you have a complaint about the original point of view, that described the government's battle to regain its capitol city as "slaughter"? That description does not seem to align with typical military science documents describing the likelihood of high-casualties among both parties in any urban combat situation, and it tends to mirror a point of view broadcast in the first hours of the PLA's action, which were quickly repudiated when accurate accounts of the battle were available. For better or worse, the myth of a massacre in the square, or of a "slaughter," is often repeated without comparison to similar actions, such as those of United States armed forces in Panama City later that year.

I propose that your lack of expertise might incline you to see information that contradicts an uninformed point of view as not being from a neutral point of view. This might be because a neutral examination of mob activities requires a person to re-examine myths perpetrated by mobs with no well-organized or coherent dialectic other than repetition of self-interested versions of events. Nudder1 16:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has Ochlocracy not mob rule. This needs to be changed over to the classical term.WHEELER 16:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would not the term mobocracy be more pertinent?--Numerousfalx 22:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the article to make it more objective--Robert Claypool Review my changes, and if it is objective enough, remove the tag. Of course it can always be edited again to make it more objective.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.46.38 (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2004 (UTC)

Milnea Trudenau seems to think that censorship is his purview. The prestigious Oxford English Dictionary puts in occurences of the word in actual instances to prove the point of its defintion of the word. It is to make a reference to all instances in proving actual usage--historical usage. Milnea Trudenau is a democrat, he wants to cover over by censorship things that disagree with his orthodoxy.

That is why I am putting back the occurences, because the historical usage of the term refutes what is written in the article itself and points out the slant of Wikipedia and the way users are using it to slant information their way of course. WHEELER 16:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am a firm believer in absolute freedom of speech. You are most welcome to create your own website and write on it whatever you wish. But don't try to insert your POV on Wikipedia. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what is your authority on Wikipedia, that your POV reigns on Wikipedia? Your user page is of no help whasoever. Robert Claypool—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.15.15 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

How can historical use of a term (any term) serve as a "refutation" for anything? I was under the impression that arguments are normally used to refute things. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Historical use of a term can be posed as an arguement. Just about anything can be posed as an arguement, so your post makes no sense. Robert Claypool—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.15.15 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

Before going higher in the steps, Milnea Tudoreanu seems intent on deleting "Occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" from the article Ochlocracy. I have taken two examples from the OED and found other historical examples on the way it has been used. Tudoreanu deletes the lot of them. I think it would be NPOV if he found his own references of the word and added them also but he deletes them all. This is not right. He doesn't seem to acknowledge history but wants to change history to suit himself. I quoted from Mr. Muller, a very famous classical scholar of ancient Greece. Do you not think that this man is quite capable of knowing what the word means. I also quoted from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who uses the same term in the same way as Mr. Muller does 100 years later. Isn't that being pretty good evidence of the meaning of the term? I need help here to resolve this issue. I really do believe that Mr. Tudoreanu is not being honest in his edits and is playing games.WHEELER 18:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's the deal: Let's just put in the occurences that are given in the Oxford English Dictionary. I think we can all agree that they are appropriate. But leave the other ones out. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am waiting for a response and a discussion from Mr. Tudorneau.WHEELER 19:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am waiting for a response and a discussion from Mr. Tudorneau.WHEELER 19:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Waiting for a response Mr. Tudorneau of why the deletions. Do you have any evidence of why you deleted the occurences or did you just delete because you didn't like the meaning of the word?WHEELER 21:36, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not on Wikipedia every day, you know... sorry for keeping you waiting. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What evidence, what scholary book refutes the instances of the word "Ochlocracy" that I have put in? Of course, the word "Ochlocracy" is derogatory towards democracy. Every Aristocrat calls democracy an Ochlocracy. This is NPOV. Let the Aristocrats have their voice.WHEELER 18:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I again ask Mr. Tudoreanu for any evidence. Two people have come back on and restored the occurences of the word. Mr. Tudoreanu reverts it again and has not responded at all on the talk page. Can Mr. Tudoreanu please supply the reasons why he is reverting the occurences.WHEELER 01:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still expanding my limited exposure to Chinese history, but the Tianamen Square portion completely ignores the Red Guard, whose actions appear to consist mainly of mob rule.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackwrench (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mob rule

I'm not taking Wheeler's side, but I cursory glance at the article suggests a division of the topic into two articles:

• mob rule - for the modern phenomenon
• ochlocracy - for the Greek word and ancient ideas about it

Just my 2 cents. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggested something similar on my talk very recently, myself suggesting a move of this page to Mob rule. Your idea seems even better however, since WHEELER felt (and I feel legitimately) that there is a special need for a page to focus on the classical meaning. So long as the two link to each other, I see no disadvantage to splitting the classic term "Ochlocracy" (which I'd never heard before finding this article) off from the modern concept of "Mob rule". I second Ed's proposal. Sam [Spade] 20:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, we actually agree on something. (Does this mean we are budding ochlogarchs? ;-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually I may be one, Thomas Jefferson is perhaps my most favored political figure, and he felt regular revoloution (Ochlogarchy, if you will), enabled by the right to bear arms, was a necessary component of true democracy and protection from tyranny. God I wish I could vote Thomas Jefferson for President... Sam [Spade] 19:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are aware, of course, that Jefferson was closer to being a deist than a Christian. He wrote his own version of the New Testament removing all the "supernatural" elements. AndyL 23:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He also made it a habit of F***ing his slaves, what of it? Sam [Spade] 01:04, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just thought you might not know:) AndyL 03:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find a lot of Americans are under the illusion that their country is founded on 'Christian principles" or that the Founding Fathers were Christian when neither is true. AndyL 04:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You remind me of a Chick tract I read once... Sam [Spade] 14:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here ya go, knock yerself out. Sam [Spade] 14:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So how about splitting off this new page, now that we have consensus? Sam [Spade] 14:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm more interested in finding consensus than concensus (whatever that is). AndyL 16:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concensus is a horse, and a rather fine one at that. As fine a troll as you make, I think you made a better editor. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How do you break wikipedia's association of the term "mob rule" with the article "Ochlocracy"? Hackwrench 19:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The technical term is "Ochlocracy" it is a slang term used for democracies because that is what they slide into. It is about pandering to the biggest block or biggest group in order to gain power and keep it. The OED uses the term in its dictionary. Really, I need to get Polybius and read him to find out what he really meant by it for he coined the term.WHEELER 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Ochlocracy" is in my Webster's dictionary. It's the current term (not just the ancient one) for a system of mob rule. So I agree with Wheeler. Surprised, Wheeler? :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 20:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mob rule blanking

I changed Mob rule back into a redirect for now. The page there was extremely specious, and this article actually discusses it in some depth. Until someone's prepared to actually write a decent separate article about mob rule, I think it's best this page remain the one people see. Deco 01:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do the objections still hold

Or can we take off the neutrality? It seems fair to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.224 (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be bold. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 20:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are some orthographical faults in the ancient Greek! - Be careful with it! [PeterSh]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.4 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could somebody have the decency to put a pronunciation in IPA for the word ochlocracy so we know how to pronounce it. A sound file would be nice too but its up to you guys. TY Lincher 18:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the IPA, but -ch- in Greek words borrowed into English is generally pronounced as /k/, as in monarchy, chronic, chrome, christ, chrysanthemum, and for that matter kilometer. So now, if you know the IPA, you can deploy your own decency and do it. Flounderer 09:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia be "Mob Rule"?

Seriously. In a way, it sometimes seems that way, and I'm not a burned out "this place sucks, I quit" user.  ;-) Bobak 02:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is. The alternative is an oligarchy like the Encyclopedia Britannica ;) --212.239.229.161 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

From the article Angry mob

Angry Mob The Angry Mob is a large group of people that are upset or angry with something. They can be Men, Women, children of any height, religeion, gender, culture and status. These people, frustrated and angry, by an event or person, find they have strenght in numbers and they therfore do things that as an idividual they could never do. A Mob mentality ensuses. Angry mobs are an extremly destrucive force.

Armament They can be armed with anything, from AK-47s to baseball bats, Molotov cocktails, rocks, torches, pitchforks and scythes. Mobs seek only to destroy and disrupt, and although they are comprised only of civilians, they can do a very large amount of damage in a very short time.

History Angy Mobs have been prevelent scince biblical times, and there are many references to them in hisorical manuscrips. Even today in places such as Iraq, Yemen and Togo there is continualy Mob Violence.

Weakness The Mob is almost impossible to tame, lead and co-ordinate. They are irrational and spontaious, often turning on one another. Because they are so undisiplined an small number of riot police, police or solders can easliy fight off and disperse a mob, due to their superior training,discipline and weapons.

Mob IQ To work out the IQ of a Mob, follow this simple rule: The IQ of the Smartest Member (SM) divided by Number of people (N) minus the amount of Weapons (W) $SM/N-W$

In popular culture Mobs are a strong symbol of uprising or revelution, so they can be seen widely in the Media, on the news, in movies, in books and in video games. Two such examples are:

• In the movie Van Helsing, an Angry mob comprised of villegers with torches and pitchforks come to destroy the scientists lebrotory.
• In the popular video game Command and Conquer Generals As the faction GLA you can trian Angry Mobs and arm them with AK-47s.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrg.msc (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Split

I think we should split this article into Ochlocracy and Angry Mob.--Taida 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuckheads and dickheads

It seems to me that there is a link or overlap between Ochlocracy and the "social web". I've just come across Doug's page and found "The Rule" of Wikipedia there and then http://davidgerard.co.uk/fsckhead.html. It prompted me to examine my own behaviour, and I began to redden. So I read on to find the error of my ways and absolution. Then the writings of Wittgenstein and Chomsky, who I had been reading here popped into my mind. It seemed to me that their "frank" mode of expression fitted firmly into the definition of "dickheads". I suggest that the "social" aspect of the web, even if still resonating with echoes of West Coast geniality, is actually simply an Ochlocracy. It shuns misfits of one type or another, and, from The Rule et seq seems proud of the fact. That is a short term view as the loss in the end is to the diversity and viablity of the Ochlocracy itself. Just a thought. The thought that follows that is then: Are the people who "invent" things that significantly impact upon the whole of society, and the people most "skilled" in their use, the people who should control the use made of those things? LookingGlass (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian ”democracy”

The last events 07.04.09, occurred in Moldavian capital Chişinău, may be an example of installation of a interesting form of government which is much closer to ochlocracy than any other forms of government. who is interested could study this phenomena in detail. --Kalatorul (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

See Also: California?

I went ahead and removed California from this article's See Also list. If you want to link to a specific historical entry about California where Ochlocracy is directly visible, please do so. However, I think linking directly to the California article with no insight as to why or what you're referencing is a little weasely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekutyn (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a "Monster Mob"

I have added a section to this article to refer to a cliche that pervades literature and cinema; namely, that paranoid, ignorant, and irascible villagers- who often wield torches- assemble to confront someone whom they perceive as a monster.

While the term "Monster Mob" does not show up in dictionaries and encyclopedias, I think that this phenomenon occurs so often in world culture that it needs- and deserves- a term to describe it, even if a neologism needs to be coined; I think the only reason that such a term doesn't show up is because it has yet to be coined and introduced into popular lexicon.

I have cited at five noteworthy examples of and references to a Monster Mob, and I'm sure a survey of classic and contemporary horror films would produce many more.

While a Monster Mob is not technically an example of government, it is nonetheless one of the most prominent examples of an angry mob, and "angry mob" redirects to Ochlocracy. --MonkeyPundit (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:OR. WuhWuzDat 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate history

(1) The article states: 'In ancient Greek political thought ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government...' However, in the preceding paragraph, the article states: 'The term appears to have been coined by Polybius in his Histories (6.4.6).' How could the term have been considered at all by ancient Greeks if they never had any such term, it being coined only later by Polybius?

(2) Returning to the entire sentence: 'In ancient Greek political thought ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy).' Wrong again. First, there was no agreed meaning of democracy in 'ancient Greek thought', but rather differing opinions. However, more importantly, if we mean the leading thinkers, such as Plato and Aristotle, NEITHER of them calls 'democracy' a 'good' form. Plato constantly condemns it as a degenerate form, and Aristotle sees it as fundamentally defective. The best that either of them say about democracy is that it is the 'least worst', which is something very different from 'good', a description they never use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.166.20 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're exactly right. But no one here will care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.244.103 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to "democracy"

The article avoid remarking the main differences between "democracy" and "ochlocracy", like the massive power of demagogues and the systemic exploitation of the general ignorance of the masses.

Perhaps the similitudes of "ochlocracy" with the "advanced capitalist democracies" of our times can be better evidenced, instead of focusing on "arabian spring and angry mobs elsewere" that it is my humble opinion will be in future revealed to what they really are: grand scale manipulations of entire populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.12.95.19 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, demos is a group of people with citizenship. Being citizen means being hard bound to a) rights and b) obligations. Democracy is rule of the country by this group. So whoever controls citizenship and sets these obligations and rules, controls country. This is certaintly not "public rule", but is a subset of minority group controlling majority. 85.197.12.198 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ochlocracy versus anarchism

I've tried to improve this section, to remove violations of WP:NPOV, and inaccuracies such as the statement that Anarchism is a Socialist movement aiming at the destruction of capitalist governments (it's actually many movements, which don't always see themselves as socialist, don't want rid of only capitalist governments, and would often prefer to 'replace' them, which sounds less violent than 'destruction', which matters if we wish to remain NPOV). I've also thrown in a few links to seemingly relevant Wiki articles.

But the section remains unsatisfactory in many ways, and I'm not sufficiently interested to fix it, so I'm just going to list some of the issues in case anybody else wants to tackle them:

1) No references: there is still no authority for the claim that Anarchists argue that Anarchism is not inherently Ochlocratic because it includes theories of structure and mutual support rooted in democracy and free association. Common sense tells us that they reject the accusation of being Ochlocratic, but not what arguments they deploy, if they even think it necessary to reply to the charge. The charge was originally described as a 'popular misconception' (or some similar expression), but that seems unlikely, partly because Ochlocratic (as distinct from 'mob rule') is not a word in most people's vocabulary, and Anarchism is not a subject that greatly occupies most people's minds, and partly because the term 'anarchy' conjures up in most people's minds many problems far worse than mere mob rule, such as tyranny by local bandits or warlords, economic collapse followed by starvation, and so on. So anarchists may not necessarily feel any great need to answer that particular charge. And if they do answer it, they would quite likely avoid incomprehensible waffle about 'theories of structure and mutual support rooted in democracy and free association' in favour of something much simpler such as 'we anarchists object to being ruled, so what makes you think we are trying to get ourselves ruled by mobs?'. And that is what I would probably say if I were an anarchist (I'm not), but I'm not supposed to put that in Wikipedia without a reference to back it up.

2) Incomprehensible waffle: 'autonomous self-realizing democratic structures' and 'theories of structure and mutual support rooted in democracy and free association' are two examples. I'd like to get rid of them, but I don't really know what to put in their place. Ironically that may well be why it is incomprehensible - anarchists want to get rid of governments but many probably don't really know what to put in their place, so perhaps they deal with this by trying to hide their uncertainty and the flaws in their thinking behind incomprehensible waffle.

3) The stuff about Anarchism not necessarily being Socialist properly belongs in the Anarchism article. I've only left it in here to try to reduce the risk of a row with the original author who asserted it was Socialist.

4) I've linked the words 'democracy' and 'democratic' to the Wiki 'direct democracy' article, because the Wiki 'democracy' article begins by describing democracy as a system of government, whiich is obviously not what anarchists mean by the term. But I'm not sure that the link to the 'direct democracy' article is all that much of an improvement, and ideally it should link to an articke on 'theories of democracy', or 'anarchist theories of democracy', but no such article currently exists. Perhaps I should have linked the two instances to either one or two such non-existant articles to indicate a possible need for such articles, but I'll leave that decision to somebody else. There may or may not be a similar need for linking 'self-realizing' to a currently non-existant article on 'theories of self-realization', or 'anarchist theories of self-realization', but I've put no link at present (the current 'self-realization' article is about spirituality and Eastern religion, not Anarchism).

5) WP:NPOV presumably requires giving various counter-arguments from 'reputable' sources. Presumably these would include people claiming that Anarchism always leads to Ochlocracy (or 'mob rule'); or always does except in irrelevant circumstances such as small scattered Inuit populations in the Arctic or isolated small islands in some ocean; or always does with true Anarchism as distinct from theories falsely claiming to be Anarchist through, for instance, actually having a government but claiming it isn't really a government for one reason or another; or that Anarchism always carries an uncertain but unacceptably high risk of Ochlocracy; and so on. Plus there would probably also have to be arguments from people accepting that Ochlocracy was not a significant risk of Anarchism but arguing that this was irrelevant because Anarchism carried other far greater risks. But finding 'reputable' sources for any of this may not be too easy, if only because 'reputable' sources may not feel much need to argue about Anarchism, any more than they feel much need to argue about belief in a Flat Earth, or Satanism, or belief in Santa Claus, regardless of how unfair such analogies may seem to Anarchists. And, incidentally, I certainly wouldn't expect any 'reputable' source to carry my own views on the subject (which presumably means those views can't appear in the article, no matter how sensible they seem to me). For what little it's worth, my views are roughly that the world has never had a World Government, and consequently we've always lived in a relatively sophisticated form of anarchy, with anarchy turning out in practce to mean not absence of goverment, but absence of central government, leaving government by the strongest local bandits or warlords, currently named Barack Obama, Vadimir Putin, etc... Consequently Ochlocracy is at worst a fairly minor consequence of anarchy, except perhaps in its earliest stages, and being for or against anarchy is as pointless as being for or against gravity, as we're currently stuck with both. Plus it's probably all just that old cliche - an argument about deckchairs on the Titanic; because either humankind or civilisation self-destructs in the near future, or else, for better or worse, we will probably all soon be governed by benevolent and/or tyrannical quasi-super-intelligent machines or persons, who will presumably see little or no reason to pay much attention to our barely intelligent thoughts on the subject. But, as already mentioned, it seems that none of this can legitimately be mentioned in the article.

That said, none of this means that I think the section should simply be deleted. It always has violated quite a few Wiki rules, and currently still does (though hopefully rather fewer than before), but, as made clear by WP:IAR (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia), that is not in itself a reason for deletion unless deletion would improve the article, and I don't think deletion would improve it. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing constructive, I just had to say: Hear, Hear! Great points Tlhslobus, imo both well made and founded. And especially your conclusion. I only wish that sort of sanity could be codified in some way, so that other editors could be encouraged to follow suit, instead of merely deleting or reverting all that doesn't precisely fit some literally interpreted "regulation" (actually of course, guidance). But I also believe that bowing to the feelings of "original editors" is bad practice. Of course it is very hard to let go of one's creations, but it is necessary nonetheless. Wiki is a community SERVICE imo. Perhaps the most substantial part of being a parent is letting go of your child. Otherwise its life is smothered. Creating an article is making a gift to the community, not claiming a stake. LookingGlass (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, LookingGlass. You're probably right in principle that bowing to the feelings of "original editors" is bad practice. But what makes sense in principle doesn't necessarily always make sense in practice. In this case, a few true words that ideally belong elsewhere seems to me to be a small price to pay for reducing my risk of finding myself in an edit war which I would probably lose through lack of ideological fervour on my part compared to my opponent, with consequences that might seriously disimprove the article. The French allegedly have a saying 'Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien' - 'Better is the enemy of good', and I guess this is the kind of situation they have in mind; English equivalents are 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', 'It's often best to leave well enough alone', and 'Let sleeping dogs lie'. Of course, if you feel strongly about the suggested changes, then there's nothing to stop you making them yourself, though in that case you probably need to be willing to put up a fight to defend them if the original editor decides to object and scream censorship, etc, as seems a stronger than usual possibility in this particular instance, since the original editor's entry at least reads like it's partly motivated by his or her own ideological commitment. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like pragmatic cynicism to me Tlhslobus, and a view I share in darker moments. For myself, I've begun a process of withdrawal both from editing and subscription. I hadn't really noticed that until now. It is really a remarkable waste of copious quantities of time trying to share via wiki the results that come from referring to wiki in the first place. Sad but there it is. Wiki is an oddity, another dead cat bounce from the 60's, something to watch in fascination, like a formicary. Perhaps facts and truth should be held as secondary to pragmatism, something politicians routinely do while maintaining the reverse, but I don't think this is the most valuable contribution of French culture. "If it 'ain't broke etc" refers to something completely different imo and also depends on what you see as "it". Perhaps a little OTT if one doesn't see the significance of knowledge but: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." seems pertinent. I therefore take comfort in my own withdrawal in the plurality of Burke's observation! LookingGlass (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, LookingGlass. But I don't normally equate pragmatism with cynicism. To me it doesn't seem cynical to say that a little good achieved in practice is preferable to a lot of harm achieved through the unwise pursuit of unachievable perfection. And, at least in this particular instance, there's no suppression of truth or knowledge at issue, merely leaving in place bits of the truth that a perfectionist would remove on grounds that ideally they belonged elsewhere. I agree that in other instances in Wikipedia, there often is a genuine problem of truth suppression - but, at least in my limited experience, that is usually the result of obeying Wikipedia rules regarding so-called reliable sources (or allegedly reliable sources) when those 'reliable' sources seem wrong to me, while it seems the truth is either only found in 'unreliable' sources or in my own 'original research'. But I don't see any easy fix for that kind of problem, because the 'cure' of getting rid of those rules, or just ignoring them, will in the long run probably almost always be worse than the disease, as well as usually failing to work even in the short run (because one's 'illegal' edits usually just get reverted). So to me it seems pragmatic, but not cynical, to try to concentrate my efforts to promote 'knowledge' and 'the truth' in those areas where they seem to have a reasonabe chance of being successful. That way hopefully I can avoid being 'a good man doing nothing'. But of course if that doesn't appeal to you, there are plenty of other ways for 'good men to do something' that do not require them to edit Wikipedia :) Tlhslobus (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there may have been a wire crossed Tlhslobus. I appreciate your reply. My frustration was in coming up against a rule-enforcer whose obduracy, in the face of facts which s/he acknowledged, prevented information central to the article being included. I didn't get involved in an edit war. I did try to resolve the situation through discussion, but without the remotest glimmer of success. The other editor simply didn't engage, and only quoted chapter and verse. You and I seem to me to be very much on the same page, which I find a relief. The "good men doing nothing" thing is sensitive to me at present. I am finding myself on the boot end of the nationalist surge in Europe and deafened by the silence coming from the "reasonable" and "fair-minded majority". Plus ca change! The issue seems common in all this and a question of balancing human with machine, justice with law, the spirit of the law v. the letter of the law. It is a process and ongoing struggle. There is no "answer" or silver bullet. The growing reliance and dependence of Western societies on the letter of the law is not delivering an increase in justice in them. Wiki is important to me because of the opportunity it provides to balance the history of the victors (which I suggest forms the preponderance of third party sources) and "the truth" - ie facts in balance. Education is not the answeer but learning is and wiki has become a central resource in this. In general I choose to see wiki succeeding in this role, however, the sort of over-zealousness which I recently encountered here powerfully pushes things in the opposite direction. IMO there needs to be some form of mediation to resolve matters in this area. Anarchy is a sweet dream but the reality is Somalia, and what flows from it. LookingGlass (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed your above reply, LookingGlass. There is a form of mediation to resolve matters in this area, at WP:DRR. So far I've never used it, so I don't know how well it works in practice, especially if the rulebook is against you - though even then you can presumably quote WP:IAR and argue that the rules should be ignored to improve the encyclopedia, though I suspect you would still have a near-impossible task trying to get stuff 'likely to be disputed' into Wikipedia without a reliable source to back you up. If you like, you can point me to the Talk Page where your dispute was if you wanted an unofficial (and very unauthoritative) second opinion from me - though you might prefer to look for an official and authoritative second opinion, presumably from an admin, via WP:DRR. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Aristotle?

The ideas in second paragraph of the introductory text seems to be more or less straight out of Aristotle's Politics, and while they are more clearly referred to as such later in the article, it seems a bit weird to me to present them first without any sort of reference or citation, giving the impression that Aristotle's views qualify as neutral facts or the current consensus in political science or something like that. 88.235.150.215 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Differences between Tyranny of the Majority and Ochlocracy

Just was looking at these two articles and trying to figure out the difference to help improve them. Trying to start a discussion over at the Tyranny of the Majority Talk page. This talk page doesn't seem particularly active recently but wanted to see if anyone here wanted to join there. XinJeisan (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article needs thorough review or rewriting

I returned to this article today and found it in a poor state of repair compared to what I recall from the past. Haven't reviewed the edit history but maybe there is material that one can go back to. The Spanish article is infinitely better. This article is very thin on the ancient Greek origins of the term but full of what appears to be original research that doesn't even belong in this article. 2601:583:8205:9C20:4549:C62A:D5BC:6F8A (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur, there was a whole paragraph on Brexit that had no citations and tried to claim that thin majority wins in contested votes are an example of ochlocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.193.112 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph distinguishing ochlocracy, democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy

See revision.

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue.

Although this was seen as "pure opinion" by the editor it does seem to be an interesting statement and sources could be found to support it. This could be moved to another page about governments in general. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There's so much original research (of more than one WP:AEIS variety in that), I am extremely skeptical this could be sourced. It's well said, but is basically op-ed writing not encyclopedic writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Demos are not "people", demos are "citizens", entitled people. Democracy is "rule of entitled". 85.197.12.198 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Athenian democracy was about citizens at a time when slaves without citizen status were a reality. You could argue that there are still non-citizens in this day and age. JamesPoulson (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved with the disambiguation going to Mob Rule (disambiguation) per Zxcvbnm's observation that the ambiguous title is capped, but Mob Rule was not notified in this MR. No prejudice against a new bold move, technical request, or full discussion on that move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Ochlocracy → Mob rule
• Mob rule → Mob rule (disambiguation)

– Patently obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The obtuse ivory-tower jargon "ochlocracy" is a word virtually no one has ever seen or will even be able to guess at the meaning of. The entry for Mob (crime) on the DAB page should be moved to the "See also" section on that page, since "mob rule" never refers to the mafia, the Irish mob, etc. (Even if it did, there is zero chance that is the primary topic). The handful of pop-culture entries are all derivative uses, of no lasting encyclopedic significance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Calidum 00:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Calidum. There are a number of Greek and/or Latin terms under Category:Forms of government which serve as main title headers of Wikipedia entries. Most of those may not have a succinct word or term such as "mob rule", which can become their WP:COMMONNAME replacement, but when there is such a term, as in this case, it should be used as the main header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support first, oppose second The disambiguation page is unnecessary and should simply be overwritten. Besides Mob Rule the other definitions are unlikely or non-notable. If it is decided it should stay then it should go to Mob Rule and that article go to Mob Rule (video game) and possibly have Mob Rules merged into it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stub

There are citations and sections and paragraphs but any discussion of mob rule that thinks it started in the 17th century and solely focuses on recent English and American experiences is so incomplete and WP:BIASed that it is a stub discussion of the topic regardless. — LlywelynII 13:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)