Talk:Mob rule

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: You remind me of a Chick tract I read once... Sam [Spade] 14:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here ya go, knock yerself out. Sam [Spade] 14:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

text: "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)
thread_title: [[Mob rule]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mob rule blanking 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead.  Be bold. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 20:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the objections still hold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is. The alternative is an oligarchy like the Encyclopedia Britannica ;) --212.239.229.161 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would Wikipedia be "Mob Rule"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  From the article [[Angry mob]] 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fuckheads and dickheads 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moldavian ”democracy” 

message: 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)
thread_title:  See Also: California? 

message: 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)
replies: text: See WP:OR. WuhWuzDat 20:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The idea of a "[[Monster Mob]]"

message: (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)
thread_title:  Inaccurate history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comparison to "democracy" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ochlocracy versus anarchism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aristotle? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Differences between [[Tyranny of the Majority]] and Ochlocracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article needs thorough review or rewriting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph distinguishing ochlocracy, democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy 

message: 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 ed that it is a stub discussion of the topic regardless. — LlywelynII 13:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub