Talk:Aristocracy/Archive 1

"This inevitably means those with the power to hold wealth and to define who remains in poverty - or, often, slavery. " is this fact or opinion? Is this sentence well-formed?

Again, Aristotle says that Oligarchy is when a few rule and they are wealthy. Aristocracy means rule of the BEST. No understanding of the Greek and this is all botched. The whole political section of Wikipedia is AWFUL.WHEELER 14:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rousseau's Definition

It should be noted that Rousseau gives Aristocracy the rather neutral definition of a government "confined to the hands of a few, so that there are more ordinary citizens than there are magistrates." This is true of many republics, certainly. Does aristocracy really have a requirement of wealth or higher status?

Needs to be redone

This whole article needs to be heavily edited as it has an anti-aristocratic POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Aristocracy

Proponents of aristocracy often mistake it for its logically consistent cousin, meritocracy.

How does something this bad get into Wikipedia? I have tried to rewrite it with something approaching neutrality.

Heredity

Shouldn't the article mention the connotation of heredity or inheritance associated with aristocracy?

--Pariah 08:56, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and I thought I had, but in rereading it, the heredity part was understated to the point of being abtuse. I have tried again. Perhaps the changes address the issue more directly. Johnwhunt 13:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that gets the point across, although the idea of heritable leadership seems to extend more broadly than the UK--perhaps we can add a link to the term dynasty? or am I pushing the bounds of the technical definition? Anyway--the new one is definitely better.--Pariah 23:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

John, please explain why you reverted. Adhib 09:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of such reasoning, I propose to continue enlarging the article along the lines I was establishing previously. Please do not revert these further edits without explanation.Adhib 10:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel's rv appeared to be in objection to a link I added to Trustafarian. I've restored the paragraph he appears to have accidentally excised, minus the Trustafarian link. Adhib 20:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Virtually a definition of Wikipedia's "NPOV"

"Aristocrat as a pejorative term is intended to indicate that a person has achieved status by accident of birth, not merit - ie, a person whose unearned status is an affront to the bourgeois or liberal norms of meritocracy." Brilliant! (It does seem pointless to edit here.) --Wetman 01:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone may judge whether "aristocrat" is actually a pejorative simply by applying the adjective "aristocratic" to a range of nouns and judging the result: "aristocratic bearing, aristocratic face, aristocratic shoes, aristocratic attitude... This person simply wants aristocratic to be pejorative because she thinks it ought to be. Look at the revealing usage of "norms". --Wetman 18:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not write this text so I cannot speak to the author's intent but my gloss is as follows:

• The paragraph speaks only of the use of "artistocrat" in a perjorative sense. It makes no claims about its neutral use.
• It asserts that meritocracy is a bourgeois or liberal norm; that is, a norm of the bourgeoisie or of liberal philosophy.

As far as I can see the paragraph is entirely correct but not correctly entire. To my mind it can be fixed as follows:

An aristocrat is a member of the aristocracy. "Aristocrat" may also be used as a pejorative term to indicate that a person has achieved status by accident of birth rather than by merit—such unearned status being an affront to the bourgeois or liberal norms of meritocracy.

--Theo (Talk) 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Good job, Theo Clarke! I've returned the edited text to the article. Thank you. --Wetman 19:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And most bourgeosie are aristocrats anyways, IMHO.(User:70.72.50.20)

Plato's republic

I'm not experienced enough, but I would like to request a section concerning Plato's Republic and his view on aristocracy. --– sampi

Go right ahead, write it. I don't think it would be difficult to locate the sections in Republic that demonstrate Plato's loathing for anything resembling democracy -- in the original Athenian sense of direct, nonrepresentational mob-voting. (It's generally agreed that Plato hated Athens for executing Socrates.) What Plato would have thought of "democracy" as reinvented in the Age of Reason is anybody's guess. He was not a fan of inherited power-to-rule, though. "Republic" means something more like rule by the presumed "best" man, regardless of his social or DNA origins, whom he would have referred to nonpejoratively as a "tyrant". --Michael K. Smith 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(talk•contrib) 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful form. Good job.

Monarchies

Arguably, the end of the First World War in 1918 marked the final victory of democracy over aristocracy, as all the old European monarchies (and implicitly their aristocracies) were deposed with the exception of Great Britain. Today, the aristocracy is mostly powerless and plays a largely decorative role in most countries where it still exists. There are also exceptions, however, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Great Britain is obviously not the only country which remained a monarchy in Europe. If this is not what the article is trying to state, I think it's too unclear.

I would also suggest that the tendency in this article to refer to monarchs as aristocrats needs to be reconsidered. In social and political theory there is a tremedous difference between the two. This is especially so in Britain, but true in Europe as well. I'm less familiar with the theory and practice elsewhere in the world, so wouldn't like to comment. It is also unwise to assume aristocracies lost their power (assuming they had any) simply because a monarchy ended; the two are not necessarily linked. There is also an assumption that aristocracies had power before WW1; it varied from country to country, but in most cases they didn't have direct political power in modern times. The mention of Saudi Arabia is irrelevant, as the author seems to confuse the rule of princes with aristocracy, this is not aristrocracy, or even necessarily monarchy, but rather oligarchy. I would suggest this article is in need of a complete re-write in a much more nuanced and sophisticated mannerNcox 13:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Alec Harras (who..?) quote MAKES NO SENSE

My first time out, I'm sure my form is slovenly -- in fact, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING (yes I know there's a FAQ somewhere, and I should read it, memorize it and translate it into Urdu and back again but NOT TONIGHT, DARLINGS). So if I've irreparably damaged Wikipedia for all time, well, sorry in advance. So I'll cut to the chase: "Philosopher Alec Harras was once quoted as saying: "There's almost two billion people in the world [in the lower class], that's such a small amount. It's maybe ten or twenty percent [of the population]. And for some reason it feels like such a dominating force, now there's aristocracy for you" First off -- I'm a relatively well-read, average everyday ignorant American, and I have NEVER, I mean NEVER heard of a (an?) "Alec Harras." Is this a misspelled name? A drinking buddy of the author's, mayhaps? Or, an erudite invisible friend? Or was the author thinking, perhaps, of Alex KARRAS, the portly actor in that famously flatulant Blazing Saddles scene? Sigh. That aside, this clumsy, hyper-paranthecized (<not an English word, yes I know, mind your own business) quote is MEANINGLESS. Since there's no root canals available at the moment, let's dissect this little gem: OK, so he's telling us there are almost two billion people (in the lower class...uh-huh...so this quote was written a hundred years ago, ok...) that's a "small amount," um, ok I think, where are we going here? "and for some reason it feels like such a dominating force" um, HUH? To whom? What the HELL is he TALKING about? And now the kicker, the reason I've been (unfortunately) reading this for the past few seconds --"now there's aristocracy for you!" REALLY! Um...YEAH. There it is! Right there! Ahem....my advice to all concerned -- LINK THIS ARTICLE TO A VIDEO OF GILBERT GODFRIED DOING "THE ARISTOCRAT" JOKE. Godspeed. (Oh, ignorant question #1 -- what's with all the hyperlinked symbols (below) and such? Why can't a body simply type a comment, using the ever-handy letters and symbols on HIS OWN KEYBOARD, and, um, POST IT? I'm missing something here, by a country mile I'm missing it...) -- boob

I agree, the quote seems suspect. I did a few quick searches and I could find NOTHING about him besides other people quoting from this Wiki. I'm still new to this, but I think it needs to be flagged. I'll probably do it myself in a moment, once I figure out how. Curtangel 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Tie

Was this a mistake? Black tie is, um, not the same thing as aristocracy...please put the old black tie article back where it belongs. You could always put aristocracy on the "see also" part of black tie, or vice versa. Й

Who is a member of the Aristocracy

To me, understanding "Aristocracy" as a form of government is less important than understanding "the aristocracy" as a group. particularly who is a member? Is the member ship of the nobility congruent with the membership of the aristocracy?

I know "the peerage" is limited to those who hold titles, but I think the aristocracy is a broader group.

This article states that the aristocracy is composed of the descendants of 7,000 families which hold titles of nobility. This definition is not valid. Geneologists tell us that all indigenous Englishmen today are descended from Edward III, who certainly held numerous titles of nobility. That would make all of the English members of the aristocracy. Where do you draw the line? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.163.0.12 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Change for definition ?

Tying aristocracy to some hereditary form of government seems wrong for me. I propose the following definition:

Aristocracy' is a form of government where power kept by an elite (from a caste, class, family or even some individuals).

Vandalism

This page needs to be cleaned up a bit. Some hero has vandalised it. I bet all his friends think he's cool. Anyway, I'd edit it myself but I don't have an active log-in at the moment, just out of laziness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.118.24 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The best

Somebody should mention that the word aristoi in turn comes from the word aryan, from the aryan peoples, as in the indo-aryan peoples, the ones who invaded india from the north, moved over to persia eventually (hence the name Iran) and eventually became the Roma.