Talk:Elitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

NOTE: If you see suspiscious edits to this page, or spurious deletion tags, check the edit history. A well known and long term vandal (WP:NCV) repeatedly targets this page. Feel free to revert him as a bad-faith vandal, list his sockpuppets for blocking, and request page protection.

why do leftist hate elitism?

Well, if you mean what I'll call pop-communists (those similar to teenage anarchists and the nihilists Arkady and Bazarov from the Turgenev novel Fathers and Sons; no offense to any present), it's fairly easy to see. Elitists basically say that they are above others in their society; sterotypically because of wealth. You might as well ask why socialists and communists hate capitalist pigs ;-) --Theaterfreak64 02:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I appologize for being such a liberal elitest, but it's not my fault you lacked the braincells needed to graduate from high school
Thanks for the example of an elitist statement. Rds865 (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article could use a little TLC with regard to its POV. Some of the assertions, besides being unsubstantiated, sound less like descriptions of reality than like antediluvian Marxist platitudes.

what's an antediluvian Marxist platitude? Alden452

Contents

[edit] Favouritism

Favouritism redirects to this article, which seems ridiculous - the two things have two distinct meanings. When I've worked out how to fix it, I will! jamesgibbon 28 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

We're not being élitist enough. The word "élitist" has an accent mark. KSchutte 3 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

[edit] My edit

Hi guys, just thought I would edit this so that it would have a non-racist and non-misogynistic point of view. I'm sure you Harvard elites won't like it. Feel free to edit my grammar because it's not so great - I went to a state school and I'm a minority. But hey, it's pretty good considering that I had to attend a poorly funded public school and my father was a wage worker for an elite (who owned the means of production) and made a minimum wage, so he couldn't afford a tutor.

PS I reverted my fair and non-evil edit back to the racist and sickening version you guys like. Hope you guys will at least read my version. I like it a lot better than this current racist version.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.66.250 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The article is a description of a phenomenon, not an inspiring lecture. --Wetman 13:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Imaginary" qualities

"The term elitism is often used to refer to situations where a group of people with real or imaginary high abilities conspire to give themselves extra privileges at the expense of all other people. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination" This is not an "elite". Where the qualities are imaginary, the bullies in control are not an "elite" even if they conspire in this fashion to keep power in the hands of a card-carrying cadre. What's elite about power-thugs? They're in control, that's all. A couple of generations under totalitarian regimes blur the real meanings to the demoralized survivors. --Wetman 01:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've re-edited again, to satisfy User:Mihnea Tudoreanu's insistence that "elite" qualities may be imaginary, a resentful POV that needs to be set in a neutral context. If the qualities are in fact imaginary, then the bullies in power are not an elite, except inasmuch as they are card-carrying members of the power structure (as in recent Romania for example). Now have I succeeeded in making this into a neutral statement? --Wetman 21:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
We're not merely talking about politics here, but about any social situation. In any case, I've removed the "imaginary" part and replaced it with the statement that the elite "claims to possess" certain abilities. Since the whole notion of "superior ability" is subjective, it follows that any elite is also subjective. Take your "card-carrying cadre" or "power-thugs", for example. One may argue that they are the best thugs, and therefore represent an elite. Also, please note that the term "elitist" is often used pejoratively. "You're an elitist!" usually means "you are unjustifiably claiming to possess high abilities that you do not in fact possess". I haven't heard anyone being called an elitist with a positive meaning. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I should explain the logic: If the characteristics that define set X are imaginary, then the set is imaginary. This is why Communist schoolchildren are taught that their leaders are brave, trustworthy, loyal... etc, in order to justify the elite. --Wetman 21:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Who ever mentioned totalitarian countries? Or even politics in general? An "elite-with-imaginary-qualities" may assume leadership of any group of people - say, for example, you have a group of gamers that are very good at a specific game. Within this group there may be an "elite" formed of the best gamers; and if they acquired their reputation of "best gamers" through cheating, then they are an elite with imaginary qualities. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Might this article benefit from a list of elitists - people who proposed rule by an elite? Plato, Wyndham Lewis, Julius Evola, Neitzsche, Rene Guenon ... (Speculative catholic 04:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Anti-Elitism

I've created a pretty extensive (though incomplete) article over at anti-elitism and linked to it here. Shall we remove the section from this article? I copied the text from this article for part of the new one. --Fourthgeek 07:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? A paragraph of six lines with the heading Main article: Anti-elitism seems ideal balance. You don't want to cannibalize articles in order to create spin-offs. Are there any major points in the new article that aren't very briefly mentioned in the paragraph here? Work them in if you can. --Wetman 08:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes has been adding political affiliations to Elitism and Populism, specifically Elitism being conservative and Populism being Liberal, without a citiation and usually contradicting the entire page that occurs before the comment. If anyone disagrees with this charactertization of these edits, please respond here or Talk:Populism; otherwise please be on the lookout for these edits and remove them asap.--TheGrza 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to these pages are completely ridiculous. Elitists tend to be conservative. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Without evidence, these are specious edits that need to be removed.--TheGrza 03:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You know I am right. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm done with this argument. You've convinced me that this is a vandalism issue instead of a good-faith edit. --TheGrza 03:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a vandalism, with you being the vandal. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Remington has been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3 RR rule. Please feel free to let me know if he continues to do so after his block or feel free to report him yourself. Good luck.Gator(talk) 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"If people use the term "liberal elite" meaning only some elitists, most elitists must be conservative." I'm sorry, that's a non-sequitur. Compare If people use the term "brown cow" meaning only some cows, most cows must be white. Please provide proper justification for your edits or stop reverting. android79 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite a large number of liberal elitists, elitism is a conservative thing, so stop reverting me.

Cite a reliable source for your edits, saying elitism transcends politics.

  • Logical fallacy #2: straw man. The onus is on you to provide a source for information you are adding to the article. I dispute the validity of your claims; I need no source. I am not adding "Elitism transcends politics" to the article. If you claim the Moon is made of green cheese without a source, and I remove that information from the Moon article, it's not my obligation to cite a source that says the Moon is not made of green cheese. android79 19:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Find a source for me not being right.
I've reported this on WP:AN/3RR, since it's pretty obvious that it's pointless arguing with you about this. android79 19:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please provide a source for your claims. I will block you for disruption if you continue reverting. android79 02:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Until you admit I am right, I will keep a Neutaliry dispute template on this page. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, that's not how it works. I've blocked you for a week. android79 04:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll add something: Admitting any single user is right and holding a neutral point of view are mutually exclusive. If android79, myself, Zoe, Hall Monitor, Etyheryery, TheGrza, and Gator1 feel one way (among many others who I'm sure haven't gotten involved), and you alone feel another yet refuse to cite sources for your extraneous claims, that's not a dispute. It's some combination of trolling, Humpty Dumptyism, and disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. I was just about to remove the POV template when I realized it had been. --Indium 04:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete

The speedy delete tag added by user Jake. Remington to is not appropriate. If you want to propose deletion, add a {{AfD}} and follow the Article for deleton policy. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree Jake. Remington has racked up 5 warnings on his userpage, next one should go to admins Xaosflux 03:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
After reverting AGAIN, have added Jake to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

[edit] Elitism

Why do you refuse to discuss your edits,and instead claim I am the "North Carolina" vandal and "Remington and the Rattlesnakes"? I will not tolerate this from the Wikiquinns. I know Remington, but he is too low-class to be my friend, although we are both involved in this stupid dispute.

Jake Remington

[edit] Protection

We usually only do 24 hour protections for vandals, but Jake and friends are still hitting us pretty hard, so I'll extend this a bit. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Been a couple of days. No sign of Jake and his groupies. :) I'll put this on my watchlist and reprotect if necessary. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request unprotection?

Can we attempt to unprotect this page now, or at least move this to semi-protect? It has been three weeks. No substantive discussion has occurred during this period. Calwatch 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it now. Shanes 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete tags

Some user called "Jake Remington" keeps putting {{delete}} and {{db-attack}} tags to the page. To that user: this is not the way to get the article deleted, as it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. As it would be a very controvertial and disputed deletion case, if you wish to see it deleted, take it to afd by adding {{subst:afd}} to the page and explain your argument for the pages deletion. I am against the deletion of the page (I would vote strong oppose), but you should not add bad speedy tags. Anyway, it an Administrator deletes this page by accident after seeing the bad sppedy tag, it will be very rapidly undeleted. Polonium 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a serial vandal (see WP:NCV for a full writeup). We revert him all the time. Antandrus (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What a lively discussion above me

I have worked to expand this article; added some sub-categories; added to the "See also" category; and noted a prominent Political scientist who has several published books on Elite theory as compared to Political Pluralism (I am referring to Thomas R. Dye). I have done so trying to maintain NPOV. Thanks. ProfessorPaul 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Elitist Superstructure finds this article tasteful

I would like to thank to all of those who have created such precise article.Aruma 11:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just VIP quality. It's DQN quality, which is, as we all know, *even* *better.* Just ask Clonepa.

[edit] "Negative connotations"?

The second para states that "Elitism has highly negative connotations" - this may be true for some, but certainly isn't true for everyone. Given that the matter is discussed in greater detail below, I propose changing the sentence to read "To some, elitism has highly negative connotations", etc. (Not sure about that "highly negative" phrasing, either, but one change at a time.) Thoughts? Consensus, anyone? Buehler? - FlyingOrca 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but to say "for some" implies that the definition and usage varies from person to person and not from situation to situation. So, I would propose something like "Elitism often has highly negative connotations".... What do you think? AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it could be either or both, and the wording should reflect that. I was thinking more along personal (as compared to situational) lines because, well, um, many of the people I know (including myself) would happily describe themselves as elitist. ;-) - FlyingOrca 02:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I would too-- but sometimes even I use it negatively, usually when referring to someone who shouldn't be an elite, or when referring to an overprivelidged, arrogant person who has a disdain for those at less of an advantage. So, although you and I might favor the word's usage in a positive light, we both have probably used it negatively, also-- it depends on the situation. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

recent use in American politics showcases this use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination?

Why does this fall within the purview of the WikiProject Discrimination? This seems to violate the policy on neutral point of view. While discussing the possibility that Elitism is a form of discrimination, it does not necessarily follow that it should be ultimately defined as such. This seems to be an overwhelmingly anti-elitist perspective, which certainly also dominates the content of the article. Infiniteawe 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

After posting this a month ago – and receiving no reply – I have removed this article's association with the WikiProject Discrimination. This clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. If anyone has any concerns, please discuss here and notify me on my talk page. Infiniteawe 20:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't be associated primarily with discrimination, as the definition of 'elitism' depends on the perspective of the person using it. In my personal experience, I would say that the term is used in a generally negative manner, although I'm certain there are people who would not see the term in this light. Gamer Junkie 07:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is objectivism elitism?

Nothing wrong with the article, just bored and curious on people's thoughts... 169.232.78.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elitism vs. Antielitism

There should be something about the pros and cons about elitism. such as it makes sense that the best should rule, on the other hand, critics say that the elite can not empathize with the lower classes, and the resulting misunderstanding results in the elite not working for the best of all, but just their group. Rds865 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-elitism section needs work

There is no longer an Anti-elitism page. The links to Anti-elitism redirect to the elitism page. For example, right under the section headed "Anti-elitism" is "Main articles: Anti-elitism" which leads back to the elitism page. Not helpful. Either delete these links, or create the page, please.

The anti-elitism section feels like it should start with an introduction to anti-elitism. Something along the lines of "There are a number of ideologies opposed to elitism. Among these are populism and pluralism." Yes I know this is in the introduction to the whole article, which would be fine if you wanted to read about elitism, but I came to the page looking for "anti-elitism" so skipped to the relevant section, and immediately found it to be not well set out.

The anti-elitism section starts off with "Elitism as a pejorative term." Yes this is anti-elitism, but it is within the context of the use that it becomes pejorative, rather than as an ideological stance. Coming from this usage direction, it still manages to step on the toes of the next two sub-sections; for example: "This use is often employed in politics in societies where social equality is valued ..." Would this be better off in a section entitled "Elitism versus Egalitarianism", or in one of the two already existing sections on populism and pluralism? Even if not, the sub-section "Elitism as a pejorative term." should be moved to a referenced section (not sub-section) entitled "Social Perceptions of Elitism." or "Social Perceptions of The Elite." or "Usage of "Elite".". This is a bit like Rds865's comment just above, but not just about theoretical stances, also about usage.

Helpful as the phrase "An elitist is not always seen as truly elite, but only privileged." is, it mixes up the elitist with the elite. An elitist believes in elitism but is not necessarily elite. Also, it needs a reference. --Meaninglesswords (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)