Talk:Ochlocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Earlier discussions

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)

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.
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.

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.

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

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)

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
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Do the objections still hold

Or can we take off the neutrality? It seems fair to me.

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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Split

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

[edit] 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)