Jump to content

Talk:Oligarchy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discrepancies

[edit]

The sentance, "Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence)," is bordering on tautology. Dustin Asby 10:54, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

lamens terms

[edit]

What does it mean???

You probably mean "layman's terms", although your version might soon be adopted by hack3rz. A layman, technically, is a person who is not a cleric (an employee of the church). More generally, it is a person who does not have specialist knowledge of the subject under discussion. "Layman's terms" are therefore words that a non-specialist can understand. --Heron 16:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


No question: the bit about "wealth" puts the USA squarely into this slot: OLIGARCHY. So how can their politicians pretend to "bring democracy to the rest of the world" !? hpbo 17:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of oligarchies

[edit]

I think there really should be a "History" section, covering the origins of Oligarchies in classical Greece, and explaining how the concept evolved up to modern day oligarchies. It's mentioned in the article that Aristotle coined the term, perhaps that can be used as a start. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

41.190.2.243 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career Choicd Made Easy

[edit]

Scince this is not a monotheistic topic, I'm so sure that the only decision to leave behind assets are only durring and directly right after divorce. When court is held, only those permissive few retain from arms the legallity of spoken decissions; not choices left ahead. If for at any reason attributing careers make a difference in people's salary I get often. Don't be let down just because this doesn't allow for comic book type of relief, such as how to dress or where to go. Every time the issue of archology is mentioned, some born lucky and some born poor get throttled like a baby during and just right before a baby shower. So: I CAN SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:C8F0:45F0:DF6A:93D3:8DED:D19 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the term oligarchy first attributed to Aristotle? It's wrong.

[edit]

Plato uses the term oligarchy in Book VIII of The Republic, which predates Aristotle's teachings. Aristotle was Plato's student. According to Book VIII, an oligarchy is one of several forms that a society can take. In the strictest sense of the word, and as Plato uses it, an oligarchy is a society ruled by a rich upper class. Also, according to Tacitus the later Roman historian, at a fundamental level there are only three forms that a society can take. Only three forms are mathematically possible. 1) Rule by a single person. 2) Rule by everyone in that society. 3) Rule by a few people in that society, which then takes the form of rule by a rich upper class as well. All other forms that man can make either don't work or don't last long. All revert to one of the three fundamental forms. 71.178.68.206 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on Musk

[edit]

@Willondon Whether or not sources say something does not make it WP:DUE or even true. Saying that someone has had "extensive influence" on a president's second term that isn't even a month in is plainly unreasonable and against WP:RECENT.

Implying that Musk's net worth has increased by a certain amount because Republicans won the 2024 election is very clearly WP:SYNTH. The cited Independent article does not make that connection whatsoever. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Big Thumpus: You appear to be very clearly an SPA created to push Musk's POV. Nowhere in the edit wars, talk page discussions, and even in your block, a shocking résumé for someone with less than 200 edits, has a single person agreed with your POV. If you continue with your WP:TENDENTIOUS POV-pushing, I will have to report you. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly do not cast aspersions. Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of accounts that have never been involved with this page are suddenly very interested now that it mentions Elon Musk. 195.99.42.55 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited Independent article does not make that connection whatsoever. Neither do we. Like the source ("Elon Musks’s wealth has jumped more than $170 billion since Election Day, according to a Washington Post analysis, capping off a year that saw the tech billionaire go all in supporting Donald Trump and Republican candidates with a combined $277 million contribution."), we state he contributed $277m and his net worth rose more than $170B after the election. Who do you believe is practicing synthesis? It would be alright for the source to propose a causal connection, if that's their analysis; but as you said, it doesn't. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently says:
Musk invested an estimated $277 million into the 2024 election, and personally gained a reported $170 billion within weeks of the Republican party's win.
This language implies that the gain of $170 billion has something to do with his investment in the election, which is indeed synthesis. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we can see the comparison between what the source says, and what the article says. The same, as far as I can see, without plagiarizing. If there is synthesis in juxtaposing the two facts, then it's from the Independent, which is their perogative as they do their analysis. I did change the word "invested" to the source's word "contributed". signed, Willondon (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am making is that pointing out changes in Musk's net worth has absolutely nothing to do with the article, which is about oligarchy, therefore making the mention WP:UNDUE. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence acts as supporting evidence to the previous sentence, explaining in more detail how Musk was a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the portion of the sentence mentioning his contributions to the election, which is why I left it intact with my reverted edit, but the second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the election unless it is meant to imply that Musk's net worth increased because of the results of the election, which is a dubious claim. And not to get into the weeds too much, but about half of Musk's gains from the post-election rise in TSLA have now been erased, so at the very least I'm guessing that the $170 billion figure is no longer accurate. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no source that describes Musk as an oligarch or discusses such a description points out those numbers, then neither should we. That is synthesis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That section also says Musk contributed an estimated $277 million into the 2024 election, and personally gained a reported $170 billion within weeks of the Republican party's win. This is cited to two articles which make no mention of "oligarchy" or "oligarch", making it WP:SYNTH. This was authored by Alexgreenhouse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were not Jeff Bezos and Zuckerberg standing up there on the dais with Trump at the inauguration? Sam Altman and some other tech big-wigs were guests at the White House shortly thereafter. Why does Musk the oligarch have so much weight that it merits two sentences and these other guys don't get a mention at all? Bill Gates has exerted some weight in politics as well.Manuductive (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also bizarre to mention Musk and not Thiel, who has been more often and reliably described as an oligarch in American politics, often alongside discussions of Musk that stop short of describing the latter as an oligarch. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention Russian oligarchs or historical oligarchs like the Rockefellers? If this article was filled with examples of other individually named oligarchs I think it would be easier to justify inclusion of Musk. However, to just include Musk and no other named individuals or no historic US examples gives the appearance that the inclusion is based on contemporary politics rather than as the best illustrative example of the type. Given the current article depth I would advocate removing the Musk section entirely. Springee (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. First of all, Musk is richer than all the Russian oligarchs combined, so surely he warrants inclusion more than any of them. Second, I just added a reference that specifically supports the statement that people have described Musk as an oligarch. Feel free to agree, disagree, analyze, etc. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 22:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being rich is not how we determine dueness for inclusion, and the notion that Musk’s net worth makes him more due for inclusion than any Russian oligarch betrays either a total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, or of the literature on oligarchy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: There was honestly no need to make that next revert. The article included not only Musk, but also the Rockefellers, both cited to reliable sources that explicitly say they have been described as such. It is not, as you say, one against four. Willondon has supported my viewpoint as well, as well as the IP. That makes three against four – not really the 1AM situation you described on the talk page. Alright, time to make my case I guess. All the other sections without main articles have examples. (The Russia and Ukraine sections don't need examples since anyone wanting them can easily click the conveniently linked main articles.) The Philippines section gives Dennis Uy as an example. The Iran section gives the Velayat-e-faqih as an example. Since the United States has no main article titled American oligarchs, it ought to have an example as well. In fact, since the history of American businessmen having influence over the government is long, it ought to have two examples: one historical, one current. There is a gargantuan body of sources supporting both statements, and it's likely that our readers who are searching for the United States section of the Oligarchy article probably want to see examples of American oligarchs. I don't get why you just keep reverting when I have addressed every one of your points. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All that IP did was imply a conspiracy. Is that your position?
I have reverted your additions because there is no consensus to include them. For my part, I find this article has way undue weight on the United States, which is a minor aspect of the study of oligarchy in the world, and the example of Musk is a poor one anyways, since he is much more rarely described contemporarily as an oligarch than Thiel. But in any case, unless sources discussing oligarchy in America generally balance historical examples with current ones—and from my reading, they do not—there is no reason to shoehorn in a contemporary example. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well-put; agreed ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oligarchy&oldid=1275870477"