Jump to content

Talk:Kakistocracy

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

Protection

[edit]

Why does a non-page have protected status? Especially given that it is a part of the 'basic forms of government' list, it really seems like there should be an article here. 'Kakistocracy is a theoretical form of government formed by 'the least qualified people'. Most commonly, the term is used by individuals to criticize a government and its' leaders that they oppose.' would be at least a start. 87.113.242.29 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected by User:Pascal.Tesson, who has not edited Wikipedia since 2010. Perhaps this page should be listed at WP:Requests for unprotection. Jarble (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Kakistocracy. I added useful content and significantly expanded article --CasetteTapeMaster (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request January 2016

[edit]

Please add {{pp-protected}} to the top of the page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done BethNaught (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Recreated Successfully

[edit]

I just successfully recreated this article at Kakistocracy and has some useful-worthy content --CasetteTapeMaster (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether the last paragraph, about November 2016, is maintaining a NPOV. While I share the POV, that doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia without something to balance it. Dgndenver (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the NPOV policy. There is nothing in violation of it in that paragraph. That the upcoming Trump administration is being widely described as a kakistocracy is a fact and a highly relevant one for this page, which is about the word and its use. And note that references to the Obama administration as a kakistocracy also appear on the page, and no one complained about violation of NPOV when the use of the word in that case was reported here. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

spelling correction

[edit]

In the second paragraph in the Usage section, David Cay Johnston's name is incorrectly spelled "David Clay Johnston" -- Mr. Johnston has a Wikipedia entry under the correct spelling. Jimcgreevy (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"An example of a modern day Kakistocracy is the Trump administration which began in January of 2017."

[edit]

That's extremely subjective. Wikipedia isn't the place to vent your precious feelings. With that in mind, I removed that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:4202:1B40:F58B:E194:9797:CDFB (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Trump's portrait also needs to go or it will look even worse, like some subliminal message. 2.39.45.189 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree. Wikipedia abuses the discussion by aiming it for the usage of Trump haters. Deep State anyone? 174.160.186.3 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kakistocracy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Usage section neutral?

[edit]

As of when I made this posting (March 2018), the Usage section of the article appeared to be a place where people express opinions about the current POTUS rather than discussing the term "kakistocracy".

The section has, in this order:

  • a half-sentence about the majority of the 20th century,
  • a half-sentence without specifics about the Reagan administration,
  • a sentence about the word's usage globally,
  • a sentence about Glenn Beck's use of the word to describe the Obama administration, and
  • six paragraphs going into detail about the use of the word to describe the Trump administration.

This appears to me to be biased. If it is biased, should we find examples of other kakistocracies, summarize the description of the Trump administration, or do both?

--Rob Kelk 15:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it is biased, since the term was not used about other recent US Presidents. It is certainly however major overkill and should be pruned, irrespective of what may be added about others (inc. non US?). Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another Trump-hating hit piece by butthurt leftists, not an encyclopedic article in any way.77Mike77 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@77Mike77, Robkelk, and Pincrete: The word "kakistocracy" has often been used by critics of the Trump administration. This is one reason for the word's recent popularity. Jarble (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble:Yes, that was exactly my point - and exactly my complaint. The word is being used by critics of the current US administration. Where else in the world is it being used? Who else in the world is being described by it? Is this term sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia article? --Rob Kelk 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: Yes, this article's lead section explains the previous usage of this term by Thomas Love Peacock in 1829. This section of the article explains its previous usage throughout the late 20th century. Jarble (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: I would still like to see some non-USA uses of the word. Would you have any complaint if I was to summarize those six paragraphs down to one sentence? --Rob Kelk 21:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: As far as I know, the word kakistocracy has mostly been used in the USA, and more rarely in other English-speaking countries. If the article's summary of the word's usage is accurate, then it is not necessary to remove it. Jarble (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: Not going to remove, just going to summarize as per WP:IMPARTIAL. --Rob Kelk 21:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC) EDIT: And WP:TRIVIA --Rob Kelk 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion is not encyclopedic and has no relevance to Wikipedia. Jibal (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added an unsourced reference to Joe Biden, and added the Joe Biden menu at the bottom. Needs a source otherwise it's biased

It's been removed. Don't be afraid to remove spam like that when you see it.Cutelyaware (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to head off an edit war

[edit]

I've reverted this apparent WP:POV restoration of a photo with an unbalanced politically-charged caption in the Usage section. I suggest rhetorically that rerhaps a quote from this more balanced review in Forbes magazine of the book Mark R. Levin (2016), Plunder and Deceit: Big Government's Exploitation of Young People and the Future, Simon and Schuster, ISBN 978-1-4516-0633-1 might be better:

This book is particularly timely in view of Donald Trump’s attempt to reach out to minority voters and question why they should vote for the same Democrat party whose policies produced such poor results over the last half century. Whether Mr. Trump would actually be better for minorities is a stretch, but speaking out about failing policies is an important first step.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That obviously has no relevance to this page. Jibal (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See a follow-up edit here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

[edit]

Someone added Israel and Netanyahu's government to the Usage section. There are two Haaretz sources for the claim (after I removed some sources that did not appear to use the word "kakistocracy"):

I'm unable to fully access the first source, but it probably doesn't mention "kakistocracy" at all. The latter is a news analysis by Alon Pinkas and does mention "kakistocracy". I found another analysis by Pinkas that also mentions "kakistocracy". If two (or three) analysis sources is all we've got, I don't think this passes WP:DUE. Politrukki (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haaretz appears to have frequent web outages, at the moment the site isn't even reachable for me. Archive.org has copies of the articles. Haaretz is known for its liberal/leftist leanings, so, much as with my new section below, it's easy to find partisan but reliable sources.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230129092442/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-12-06/ty-article/.premium/dont-expect-israels-new-far-right-government-to-have-a-foreign-policy/00000184-e73b-d64a-a3fe-efff944c0000
https://web.archive.org/web/20230228161226/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-28/ty-article/.highlight/benjamin-netanyahu-the-architect-of-israels-fastest-national-failure/00000186-94af-d064-afde-f7bf1ba70000
cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to "Netanyahu Is Sinking to New Lows, and Taking Israel Down With Him" (Verter). If the article is really just one paragraph, it doesn't mention "kakistocracy" at all. So we're left with one source (piece) or two sources (pieces) if both Pinkas pieces are counted. I will remove Verter and consider removing the Israel entry from the list. Politrukki (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editors (or perhaps it's the same editor) from certain IP range in Israel keep reverting this without discussing. I don't see where any of these sources mention "kakistocracy", therefore the content is based on improper synthesis, and should be omitted. Politrukki (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend eliminating any "contemporary" examples

[edit]

This article is routinely used (or attempted to be used) to try to implicate various persons/political regimes as kakistocracies clearly on partisan basis. Most get reverted. Some do not. Considering the political climate around the world, perhaps it would be best if the article restricted it to long-held examples of kakistocracies, before the current era - for example, before 1950, or some other arbitrary threshold that would suggest that history has long held they were so. There are 'friendly' media around the world who are all too glad to state that X is a kakistocracy, lending to "reliable" sources just rolling along with partisanism. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You described the problem. Obviously we need to revert weakly sourced content that's obviously undue or original research, but I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria should be. If the content is supported by academic research or there is overwhelming support in reliable news sources, the content probably belongs. Politrukki (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it's the inclusion/exclusion criteria that are quite sticky. We can't supress information arbitrarily, but we also need standards for notability that aren't easily gamed. I think we need 'expert' help! Perhaps an RFC or some such would be appropriate, however, even though I'm a very longtime editor, I've intentionally avoided learning all the backend bureaucratic processes, and would likely screw it up, as I have in the past! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFC may be an option sometime in future, but not yet as there has not been a thorough discussion. If more users don't participate this discussion, I would suggest consulting Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. The former cannot form a consensus about editing this article (per WP:LOCALCON), but it can consulted for advice. I personally came to the article from BLPN, specifically this discussion. If you consider initiating an RFC sometimes later, you should think very carefully what you want to ask and how. Maybe try workshopping the question.
I'm thinking that, instead of using a list of examples, entries that pass DUE should be written in prose. A list like that is bait like a controversy section. I'm just not sure how many relevant sources are behind paywall. Politrukki (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I looked further into the article history, and found that there used be a "Usage" section: one paragraph where the content was written in prose, see revision at 15 June 2021. Politrukki (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. The prose version is far superior, in that it doesn't leave open a 'list' where it's easy to add one's 'favored' (heh) kakistocracy in a drive-by edit. I think restoring that would be an improvement. Shall I be bold and do so, and see where it 'lands'? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to suggest this. I've been working on other "undesirable forms of government" articles; they pretty much always have a list, and I always remove such lists as I develop the article's prose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the old narrative with some modifications, folding in at least one (didn't keep count) of the former 'list' style entries. I briefly contemplated adding a 'nowiki' notice at the bottom of the section advising some guidelines for inclusion/exclusion, but felt that was too heavy handed. We shall see. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, coming from the NPOV board: The article shouldn't be stuffed with every modern mention of the word, lists like that do just keep growing and growing. I think criticism like this is so harsh that it is clearly an insult from my perspective. You could even say the usage of the term picked up after the Paul Krugman mentioned here - [1] used it to describe a modern presidency - you can keep the content and drop the name. Denaar (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the usage of Joy Reid and John Brennan by name, but not Krugman, because the sources didn't mention searches spiking after Krugman's column. To be clear, I had not read that The Washington Post source before even though it was cited in our article. Politrukki (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and others who have commented here. I will remove the Brennan tweet that I already removed many months ago. Politrukki (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another, near-perfect example of kakistocracy

[edit]

Add to the list of examples that most Israelis see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2022 government, comprising ultra-right and ultra-orthodox parties, alleged and convicted criminals, and incompetent sycophants, as a classical example of kakistocracy. 2A00:A041:3AC0:CB00:D980:99E4:FACB:FFD (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We avoid hyperpartisan examples of current governments precisely for the reason that hyperpartisans will slap 'kakistocracy' on whatever political party or government they dislike, and Bob's your uncle. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2024

[edit]

I request that the name Trump be deleted as an example of Kakistocracy because it is biased and incorrect. Or, change it to Harris so it is a more accurate example. You are being watched and are now added to the list. 71.188.17.43 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. There are plenty of reliable sources in the section describing Trump. I'm not sure what you mean, but threats of "being watched and added to the list" are taken seriously. NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kakistocracy&oldid=1250103360"