Talk:Elitism/Archive 1

section title

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

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)

"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))

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)

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 reputable source that agrees with you. android79 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

"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? AdamBiswanger1_{R.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. AdamBiswanger1_{R.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Animal Farm?

I know Animal Farm by George Orwell has to do alot with the development of elitism amongst a group of people. Maybe a referrence should be made? --Stealth Fire (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Obama and elitism

I have removed the Obama image and his name from the "see also" list, as it was clear that who ever put it there was slanting the article to support their own political beleifs. If someone can find and source signifigant information to support putting a link in the see also section then i wouldn't oppose it, but to put a picture in the page's infobox is pretty much saying that Obama is the epitome of elitism, which in my opinion is ridiculous. 86.131.204.105 (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Elitism and Libertarianism

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian and I see many similarities between the beliefs held by elitists and my own. I'm wondering if a section should be added about this?

--|RichardT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.81.87 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it should be. But reliable sources are needed that indicate something like that. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Political neutrality

For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for students deemed by conventional structures to be highly intelligent in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.

This section worries me, it sounds quite specific, does anyone know if this is targeted at a particular politician? --CrtL (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed unsourced comments

I have removed the unsourced comments under examples, which states that "only the very best in Singapore, such as the Gifted Education Programme students will be accepted for higher position jobs in Singapore", which was added in by PearlBeatz.

I have searched through Ministry directives and have determined that no such policy exists. Clearly, this is a sentiment felt by PearlBeatz which he/she has decided to express by editing Wikipedia pages. --Terrancommander (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Populism section: confusing sentences

"However, there is a difference between the idea of being more able to fulfill a political task, and the knowing of the specialization and specifications of each corporation or other group among the general population and its particular hopes and needs. This suggests a way of cooperation which between politicians and groups of citizens. Such cooperation has some resemblances to corporatism, and has been recently put into practice in some countries."

What??? What is the first sentence trying to say? It talks about a difference between an idea and "the knowing of", which is nonsensical! I assume the author meant "the difference between the idea of being ..., and the idea of knowing ...". Even so, what is the relation between these ideas? What "political task"? What is meant by "specialization and specifications"? Why mention corporations? What's the relation to elitism and populism?

Second sentence: what cooperation?

-Pgan002 (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism. Nothing in that section seems relevant to populism. I've removed it.booksrule9 (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Narcissism

This has been categorized in narcissism, yet doest mention it at all in the article. Brad7777 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. In addition, I would argue that by a more neutral definition of "elitism," an elitist is not necessarily a narcissist. Is it narcissism to believe that leadership in general should belong to those best qualified and/or best trained for it? If "elitism" is to be defined in such a way as to be always negative (it does usually carry negative connotations when used) then I suppose the classification might make sense. However, I would argue that if "elitism" is understood more neutrally or logically then it is not narcissist at all. As others have suggested, the term "elitist" is often used disparagingly to indicate folks who believe they deserve power as a result of proper birth, pedigree, inherited wealth, opportunity, etc. However, if elitism includes the idea of a meritocracy then I'd argue for a more neutral portrayal of elitism. 174.109.24.35 (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The foremost definition of elitism should explicitly refer to politics and power

I think the main definition provided in the first section needs to be re-written to place the questions of "Who rules?" and "Who should rule?" at the beginning rather than at the end. This is, IMO, more congruent with accepted primary definitions such as "leadership or rule by an elite." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism

Elitism is an ideology or element of an ideology that claims a subgroup of persons *ought* to have Power. That is not the same as granting a person or persons more "weight" or taking their POV more "seriously" than those of others.

The current definition on Wikipedia, by de-emphasizing the question of political power, redefines elitism into a question of culture or simple meritocracy. This obfuscates the question because elitism is about power and privilege.

It isn't mere fitness or acceptance of variation in skills that makes a mode of relationships elitist. Elitism involves a pivotal claim: that fitness confers different legitimate powers or rights on different people.

A simple example might illustrate this: If three housemates decide that one with direct experience as a plumber should fix the plumbing, should we conclude that these three have acted in a manner that is elitist? The answer is 'no'. No exchange of power (or "rights") has occurred. All three retain their right to change their mind at any time. It would be elitist if the plumber among the three claimed that the other two have no right to interfere with his intent to fix the plumbing OR if the plumber insisted that he should pay less rent because he's the best plumber. Sphlalle (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is being an expert (+ claiming to be an expert) elitist? This article seems to imply this. If anti-elitism is indeed such a strong stance then I think we also need to include it's critique (e.g. for discrimination against experts). I may get to fixing it in the next few years or so. --Wikiloop (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Or does the article assume that meritocracy is by default elitism? The whole thing is really confusing me. --Wikiloop (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Meritocracy does not imply that those elevated to positions where they may rule or direct actions by virtue of their merit necessarily enjoy a more privileged lifestyle. Elitism implies that any member of an elite is entitled to a more privileged lifestyle. That's my understanding. 77.101.47.254 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical examples from U.S.A.

The connection to politics could be easily exemplified by a discussion of the U.S. Founding Fathers as elitists, with the blatant evidence of the creation of the Electoral College. Here's a reference article: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/ And another from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/why-do-we-have-the-electo_b_12885468.html:

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No 68, explained that the “immediate election [of the President] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” We cannot trust the decision to the people themselves. Rather, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Meritocracy?

Can someone expound on or better cite the reference to "meritocracy" being a policy favored by Elitists? It would seem most forms of "merit" would be antithetical to "elitism" which, at least in the perjorative is usually meant to be unmerited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.74.47 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Meritocracy is not antithetical to elitism, and both can happily coexist when the elite has captured the mechanisms for determining merit. The belief that they are antithetical is, however, a very good way to prevent any effort to prevent the elite from doing so, or to remedy once it has occurred...and, of course, quiet any troubling thoughts on their part. After all, they're not elitists, they just happen to have ensured that only the right people (who merely happen to be members of their group) can gain access. Werhdnt (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Elitism is the belief in a 'best' who should rule. Meritocracy also is about the 'best' ruling; the best doctors ruling medicine, the best engineers ruling engineering, the best surveyors ruling surveying, all setting the standard for entry and acceptance. But today our politics are increasingly influenced by "prizes for all", which reflexively abhores hierarchy and so flees any suggestion of 'elitism' - not least in denying that the label applies to things important to them (special pleading). LeapUK (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not even wrong

In it's primary connotation "Elitism" is not a thing like Marxism, or Catholicism, it's an aspersion, a fault charged to some person, institution, etc. The first question is always "is it a thing and what thing is it?". Secondarily it is a concept associated with simple superlatives for some group attribute, e.g. Elite X where there is a conscious attempt to form a group based on some excellence. With these core conceptual corrections the redact should be straightforward if tedious. The current content appears to be a confabulation from folk perceptions. If it were a thing though, as depicted, it's opposite would be egalitarianism, so that apposition ought to stay. Lycurgus (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Elitism vs Classism

I apologise if this seems too much like something that should be written on a chat page, but I simply fail to understand how there is a difference between the two, and cannot help but wonder if the two actually warrant separate articles DJK (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Unhappy sentence

'Elitism' also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special 'privileges' and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves.

Even in an article already flagged for lacking citations, eventually one reaches the breaking point. Sentence removed. — MaxEnt 18:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)