Talk:Demagogy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Bill O'Reilly
While I agree that Bill O'Reilly fits the definition of a demagogue, his name is the only name mentioned in the versions that reference his "trademark" phrase. I feel that naming only one example of a demagogue is potentially POV. A reader should be left to decide for himself whether any particular figure is, in fact, a demagogue; the article provides more than enough information and examples to judge that. Therefore, I'm removing the reference to his name. If someone wants to create a list of demagogues from all political affiliations, go for it, but there's really too many of them to make it practical. Better to take the approach of giving examples of things a demagogue might say -- which the article already does -- than to name names and invite criticism based on NPOV violations. Joshua Nicholson 21:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- why not Rush Limbaugh and Joseph Goebbels while we're at it?
- Due to the fine line between being a demagogue and being a political prophet, I would strongly recommend that any list on this page contain either fictional characters or persons that have been out of the political spotlight for at least 20 years, preferably 50 or more, to avoid the entanglements that come with everyday political discourse. Shying away from current day figures will greatly cut down on potential edit wars regarding who is or is not a true demagogue. --Allen3 talk 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be better to stay away from current politicians for the sake of staying objective. However, no matter how objective and neutral one attempts to be, you cannot help noticing that every method used by demagogues is being used by the current US administration. Even though everybody knows how evil Hitler was, very few know how he got to power or what he did before WW2, and the only thing most people know about Peron is that he was married at some point to Eva. Bush and Cheney would make great real life examples for this article, much better than Hitler or Peron.
- But putting Bush or Cheney in this is hardly following NPOV. It is much easier to look back at a historical person then it is on something that is current.
[edit] Demagogy is much more than Hitlerian rabble-rousing...
Demagogy is inextricably intertwined with activism. Refute that in clear and unambiguous terms. IP Address 20:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Demagogy stresses the "motivation of people to causes", which is exactly what activism is. IP Address 03:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Writing letters and holding sit-ins is hardly the “set of methods used by demagogues.” I have worked with governments in Central Asia prior to 9/11 (Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan), and governments in Central and South America off and on for most of 20 years now. Mostly they have been run by not very nice people who use demagoguery help maintain their power – none of which has worked nicely “within” the system. Brimba 04:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Your assumption is that activism is some innocent thing that never lines up with basic characteristics assigned to demagogy. I think you are biased against the common reference of demagogy to having activist qualities, because of self-consideration as an activist. By the way, these are related terms...not identical. Please stop removing the term, because they do have a very close association. IP Address 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with this article.
Obviously, "wiki gods" do not know their logic. In keeping, it would be more helpful if the anonymous gentleman (or lady) whom "contributed" to the article their profound parenthetical parryings of the article had rather decided to update the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Since their statements are still valid, and I've no profound interest in demagogy, I'm leaving the state of this article to someone with a passion for it. Iffer 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
the definition quoted at the beginning of this article introduces a biased perspective without having stated a dictionary/etymological definition. i feel this article would greatly benefit from establishing the commonly accepted meaning of the term before attempting to offer any analysis thereof. such a statement is not fact, and therefore has no place as an opening statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepy Gonzalez (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title change?
Wiktionary defines 'demagogy' as 'demagogism', which is then defined in a more useful way. Also, Demagogue redirects here. I think either one of those would be a much better name for this article than 'demagogy' is. What does anyone else think? Mdotley 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
