Talk:Ideocracy

Where, please, are the disambiguation links that were objected to?

Disambiguation links

One disambiguation link removed...where there others?? Crawiki (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of 'current examples' section

Not sure I understand why this has been done, everything was accurate and properly sourced

.

The section preceding it refers to nuclear weapons and nuclear holocaust. Removal of current examples makes that comment irrelevant. Crawiki (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You need a source that *directly* calls these countries Ideocracies. Reseaching the subject I came across one book that uses the term ('Politics of Ideocracy', Piekalkiewitz and Penn) and a few articles

• "Ideocracy and Totalitarianism: A Formal Analysis Incorporating Ideology",
• "The Emerging International Ideocracy and Russia’s Quest for Normal Politics".
• "The Decline of Ideocracy"
• "Ideocracy or Realpolitik?"
• "The Dethroning of Ideocracy"
• "The Structures of Ideocracy: Space and Hegemony"
• "Ideocracy and Systemic Apotheosis"

Moreover, listing examples with a (seemingly) private assessment of the shortcomings of these countries is rather unhelpful unless you explain who calls them that and why, i.e. X calls Y a ideocracy since it shows attributes A, B and C (or somesuch). After all, it's supposed to be an encyclopedic article on ideocracy, not a private assessment of various political systems and/or countries and their shortcomings. Kleuske (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crawiki: If I read an article on a politicological term, I want to know who coined it, when it was coined and why. Moreover I want to know which other (notable) authors used the term in which context. What I do not want to read is your personal opinion of who you think fits the bill. I most certainly do not want to see authors who wrote centuries before the term was coined shoehorned into this mess as a reference. Case in point: Ibn Khaldoun never heard of ideocracy, never used the term and did not classify any nation, kingdom, khalifate or emirate as such. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I do not want to go on a wild goose hunt to find out who "Kinzer" is and what work you are referencing. Kleuske (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Will look into this when I've time.

'Mess', 'Wild goose hunt'; what do these terms mean, in the context of a scholarly discussion? Crawiki (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what they mean. But I doubt that you've actually heard any discussions between scholars, they can get pretty heated and words like those can be mild in comparison. Please don't leave spaces before your sentences, to indent use colons. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, someone who knows how to use 'please'. Refreshing. Crawiki (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

'I'm sure you know what they mean'...as I say, in the context of an academic discussion, no. None of my politics degree essays ever earned pejorative language like this. See Wikipedia: Rude and possibly Cherry-picking 'I doubt you've heard discussions between scholars'...please, don't presume to know me better than I know myself. I was at uni for three years, I attend politics discussions at Literary festivals every year and observe/listen to them on TV/radio almost daily. 'They can get heated and this is mild in comparison' ...Call me picky, but I don't see that as relevant. I spend many hours voluntarily adding to an article, and it gets called a 'mess'. It's not acceptable. Crawiki (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So instead of actually answering the points made, you complain about the tone. Color me surprised. Kleuske (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crawiki:, I'm not talking about the sort of experience you've had, but never mind. Kleuske is correct, concentrate on the issues. Have you read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR yet? If not, read them first to understand why you have been reverted. And please note that leaving a space before a sentence that starts a new line does make what can fairly be called a mess of the formatting.Doug Weller talk 15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

'Instead of actually answering the points raised'....kreuske, what part of 'will look into this when I've time' are you failing to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 16:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I merely get "Brave, brave sir Robin, bravely ran away" for some reason. Kleuske (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You are sadly misinformed. Saturday afternoons, gardening. Sundays, hiking. Monday mornings, creative writing class. Hence the likely delay. Or do you expect me to do it all on my mobile, while trotting through the Brecon Beacons?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawiki (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So.... Despite your overflowing schedule, you find the time to post it here and complain about my choice of words, but you are far too busy to answer the actual point? Is that a fair summation of your standpoint? Kleuske (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske:I think a detailed answer is too much to expect in those circumstances, whatever other comments have been made. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Apologies to Crawiki and have a nice walk. This can wait. Kleuske (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

am reading Piekalkiewicz , there is another book by Uwe Backes, will try to access that soon. Both make the point that Ideocracies are dynamic things, obeying general rules. Clearly a complex topic requiring more time and research to do it justice.

COmmunist China, Iran and north korea are listed as current ideocracies by Piekalkiewicz, Backes has separate chapters about each of these past ideocracies; RSA, Fascist Italy, USSR, Nazis, GDR. Would seem reasonable to list these.

I take the point about Ibn Khaldun having lived centuries before the word 'ideocracy' existed, though if apply that principle to Christianity eg would mean all the Old Testament would have to be excluded? The term Wars of the Roses was coined in Victorian times, does that mean no quotes or opinions from any prior historian?

have I got the hang of indents and colons now? Crawiki

Better. But as the editor above you used 4 colons, you should have used 5. @Crawiki:, sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ (I've made these visible so they don't sign my name). You can only list countries that have reliable sources - have you read WP:RS? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why was the paragraph about scapegoating, referenced from Piekalkiewicz book, removed? Clearly about ideocracy, integral part of the description. Have said who coined the term, no idea when, why is Kreuske demanding this info? It's not in either book.

oh, yes, forgot; Crawiki (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

please note, I'm restricted to use of municipal library PC 2/3 hours a day for detailed editing. At other times, only have smartphone. Crawiki (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, do not turn peoples opinions into statements of fact. The fact that Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz (et al) claim something, does not mean it's factual. Attribution is neccesary. Kleuske (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Crawiki: Again... Please do not present the opinions of any author as statements of fact. "See also"-sections belongs on the bottom of the page and is not intended as an excuse for free association. Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

See also

@Crawiki: As alread stated above, a "see also"-section is not an excuse for free association. Instead of reinstating the disputed section please read WP:BRD and discuss the entries. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Kleuske, Where to start? Deletion of the entire section does not improve the article. WP:BRD is not mandatory. Also it says 'be specific' when editing. Calling the deleted section 'free association' tells me nothing. It is a sweeping generalization, a psychiatric term which implies an absence of thought. That makes it Ad hominem.

Discussing the matter on this basis would simply be a false compromise. I have provided good reasons; you have not. You need to be specific. Crawiki (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Crawiki: The subject you mention do not have an obvious relation to the subject at hand, except your sayso. Moreover, I notice you mainly reference subjects that are a) tendentious, b) written (mainly) by you and/or c) of poorly sourced. Most of the articles you mention that are legit, do not mention or reference the term "ideocracy", except in the "see also" section where you put it. Please peruse WP:OWN, thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Authoritarian personality: Does not reference "ideocracy" except in the "seel also" section, where you put it.
• Doublethink;Does not mention "ideocracy"
• Ideology:linked in the lede, has no place in that section per MOS:SEEALSO.
• Power politics: Mentioned only in the See also-section, where you put it whith a slew of other irrelevant links
• Power Politics (Wight book), written by you, I'm considering filing an AfD for this one.
• Political stagnation, ditto.
• State collapse, ditto.

Weird... Please discuss your reasons for including these. Kleuske (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Kleuske, please see "Psychological aspects": "Individuals within ideocracies develop an authoritarian personality, say Piekalkiewicz and Penn, in order to succeed or survive."

If the "Authoritarian personality" article does not yet mention ideocracy, that may be a remediable absence.

Ditto for the other articles that you refer to.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Authoritarian personality and Doublethink both mentioned in 'psychological aspects'. Ideology,[Power politics]],[Power Politics (Wight book)|Power Politics (Wight book)]] - as I mentioned before, 'ideocracy is a portmanteau word combining ideology and 'Kratos' which is Greek for 'power'.

Political stagnation and State collapse- both relevant to 'evolution' section of this article. Crawiki (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they're mentioned means they have no place in a "See-also"-section. The rest sounds like quacking through a megaphone to me. Hence I contemplate filing an SPA. See also WP:WALLEDGARDEN. Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideocracy not a synonym for totalitarianism

Rwood128 See analysis subsection, opening paragraph, for explanation. Crawiki (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Crawiki, thanks. Firstly the OED defines Ideocracy as follows: Governance of a state according to the principles of a particular (political) ideology; a state or country governed in this way.

However, I see that (confusingly) in Politics of Ideocracy Jaroslaw Piekalkiewicz and Alfred Wayne Penn define it quite differently. They apparently expand "upon the concept of totalitarianism, [and their] study introduces the concept of ideocracy to encompass all those political systems that legitimize their actions by reference to an all-inclusive utopian ideology"([1]). Can you provide evidence that this second definition is widely used? And what about the reference to an "utopian ideology"?

The lede (and the article) fails to clearly distinguish between an ideocracy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, absolute monarchy, dictatorship, etc. The fact that this definition conflicts with that in the OED also requires attention, surely. Rwood128 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add a definition of the difference between ideocracy and totalitarianism to the lede.

Lack of balance: One main source

The article also relies far too much on a single source Politics of Ideocracy by Piekalkiewicz and Penn (check Wikipedia:Articles with a single source). Sidney and Beatrice Webb in 1936, Nicholas Berdyaev and others might be brought into the discussion. An explanation of how the newer meaning of the term evolved is also needed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rwood128 as I recall there was a second source, Backes. Single source criticism inapplicable I think. I don't recall using the word 'utopian' anywhere in the article. It would only complicate matters and I have nothing to say on the subject. You are welcome to research Berdyaev and others if you wish. To borrow these almost unobtainable sources from my library costs me both money and time. I cannot do everything. Crawiki (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is strictly speaking more than one source but the names Piekalkiewicz and Penn are mentioned an excessive number of times and this needs fixing.

The word "utopia" is mentioned in a review of Politics of Ideocracy (see ([2])). But the main point is for the confusing lede to be fixed.

I never claimed ownership of this article, or any other, see WP:own. Anyone else may amend at any time. It began as a stub, to which I have added what I hope is useful, coherent detail. Crawiki (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

'Excessive', in whose opinion? Is there a standard set in WP guidelines? I made minor changes to the lead and I don't see it as 'confusing'.Crawiki (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Surely a wide variety of opinions are needed; this is a basic standard in any scholarly writing, or in an encyclopaedia (ask around). The article lacks balance because of the frequent reference to one main source. Sorry to be so critical but I am trying to help. Rwood128 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added a banner to cover this lack of balance. There may be a better banner? Rwood128 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, especially: "If multiple reliable publications have discussed a topic, or better still debated a topic, then that improves the topic's probability of being covered in Wikipedia. First, multiple sources that have debated a subject will reliably demonstrate that the subject is worthy of notice. Second, and equally important, these reliable sources will allow editors to verify certain facts about the subject that make it significant, and write an encyclopedic article that meets our policies and guidelines". Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

These sources might be used to create a more balanced account: Ideocracies in Comparison: Legitimation – Cooptation – Repression, edited by Uwe Backes, Steffen Kailitz. Routledge, 2015 and Totality, Charisma, Authority: The Origins and Transformations of Totalist By Mihai Murariu Springer, 2016. Uwe Backes and Steffan Kailitz's book is used but only significantly in one very short section. A bibliography might be added, including other titles. Rwood128 (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Perhaps it can be explained why this article shouldn't be merged with Totalitarianism. It appears, on the surface at least, to be very closely related. But perhaps further editing of the article can establish why a separate article is really needed? Rwood128 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all totalitarian states are ideocracies; not all ideocracies are totalitarian. This should be clear from the text. [It is not] There is overlap, but not total eclipse. Imagine a Venn diagram.

Alsosee article Political religion where similar nuances apply. Crawiki (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Restrictions on science by Conservative Western governments

Re "According to Piekalkiewicz and Penn, in addition, an ideocracy such as a strict Islamic state or Nazi Germany, will suppress scientific research and knowledge". This also applies, sadly, to some Conservative Western governments, like Stephen Harper's Canada and Trump's USA. So some further comment is needed here. Rwood128 (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not so. Neither Canada nor the US are Ideocracies. No doubt there is space somewhere in Wikipedia to make these points, but it's not relevant here. Crawiki (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to revert your recent edit, Crawiki, but perhaps you can find some other way to address the problem. I was aware that my edit my be original research, but the generalization here is obviously wrong. What added is known to very many people. Perhaps we should go back to the original wording, which I was trying to improve with using the word ideocratic. Rwood128 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You need sources that directly use the word 'ideocracy, as Kleuske told me some time ago. In the first article by Irfan, there is no reference to implemented policy. Its all speculation about what may happen. Encyclopedias are not soothsayers. Deleting again, please do not reinstate.Crawiki (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am criticising the definition and hope the change is acceptable? Otherwise find your own solution/sources. Earlier example in the West surely exist. Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Webbs and Berdaev

Re expanding the sentence on the above authors, see [3] and [4]. There are also other sources than the one that is relied on here. I thought that just a little more detail was needed here, nothing more. Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Populism

I really shouldn't have mentioned South American populism in the lede, as this is not discussed in the body of the article–a section of populism is an obvious omission. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rwood128 I've read through all of Piekalkiewicz and Penn and the only ideocracy in Latin America they mention was Peronist Argentina. I don't recall Brazil being mentioned at all. Is tgere any reason to include it? If so, what ideology were they following? Crawiki (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Also I see you begin by referring to Latin America as 'populist', but attempt to justify this by reference to Laqueurs book about fascism? Fascism is definitely not a populist ideology.Crawiki (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I see this section has been lifted verbatim from Populism. Do you have permission to do this? I recall you did this before in the examples section of State collapse and I later had to remove it when another editor complained.

Does Laqueur specify that Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, etc, were ideocracies? Needs checking. Rwood128 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Any good reason not to delete this?Crawiki (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please edit as you wish. I was merely trying to be helpful and make the article better. I fully acknowledged the brief passages that I used from other articles in my edit summary. Why delete, just revise and correct as necessary–I thought that this would be relevant and fill an obvious gap. Rwood128 (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't have thought of Brazil as an ideocracy, but I was presuming, from what is said in this article, that all populist governments would be ideocracies. False reasoning. If all A is B, it doesn't follow that all Bs are A So I made use of the Populism article. The same article does also intriguingly state: "Populism is most common in democratic nations".

You're an expert on the topic and I was merely attempting to hastily fill in an obvious gap. Anyhow maybe it's given you food for thought. Rwood128 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Rwood128 While I do have a politics degree, I'd be very reluctant to call myself an 'expert'. Edmund Burke, who knew a great deal more than I do, said that it takes 'more than a lifetime' to understand politics.

a google search 'ideocracy populist' will turn up some useful info to replace present disputed content perhaps Crawiki (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Pointless

this is a dumb and pointless article. Can it be relegated to the dustbin of pointless irrelevant wikipedia discards ? 116.231.75.71 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

No, not without coherent evidence Crawiki (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In 1833, the prussian historian Heinrich Leo (1799-1878) described the Ideocray (Ideokratie). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.165.74 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)