Talk:Fourth Estate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge?

Rather than scatter merge discussion over the place, let's centralize it at Talk:Estates of the realm#Proposed merge -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Carlyle quote

the carlyle quote is way, wayy to long... someone should go through, insert elipses and carefully truncate it. Janemansfield74 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links

In most other languages, the literal translation of "the Fourth Estate" means the proletariat, whereas "the Fourth Power" means the press (allusion to Montesquieu's three administrative powers), eg for German: de:Vierter Stand vs de:Vierte Gewalt. The interwiki links all point to "the Fourth Power". I added one to de:Vierter Stand, but I'm not sure if having more than one link to the same language is acceptable. A better solution would be to make this article a disambig, since it is about two different things.--87.162.56.49 (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

reason for clause deletion

I deleted a clause in “Primary Meaning”

The clause read: although in practice the latter were usually represented by the middle class bourgeoisie.

This short phrase suffers from three problems:

1. The word “latter”, when used to refer to individual items, means the second of two, not the third of three. (See the wiktionary entry for support). This could be fixed, but not worth addressing unless the other points are addressed.
2. Even if the first point is addressed, the construction implies that the reference is to “commoners’ but I don’t believe this is the authors intention (or if it is, it shouldn’t be.) The author isn’t (or shouldn’t be) arguing that “middle class bourgeoisie” is a better term for “commoners”. Instead, I think the author wants to say that “middle class bourgeoisie” is a more realistic term for what is meant by the Third Estate.
3. Which brings me to the main objection – it may be true that the real meaning of the Third Estate is “middle class bourgeoisie”, rather than the more commonly used “commoners”, but the author has provided zero evidence to support the claim. If the author can provide some evidence the claim is true, then we can address the editing problems.

--Sphilbrick (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

proletariat v. mob

The section on alternative meaning seems to say that "the mob" is a reasonable synonym for "the proletariat", when I cannot see how this can be the case. The proletariat is basically the working class in an advanced capitalist society (which seemingly never materialized), while "the mob" either means a bunch of upset and irrational citizens, or a criminal organization. The later might make sense, but it's far from clear from the context, and doesn't seem a likely meaning given the time of the quote. (anonymously posted, 10 March 2005)

No, in that time and place The Mob would have meant the hoi polloi. I think this is correct as it stands. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mob is mobile vulgus, the common multitide. You should not say "the hoi polloi", since "hoi" means "the" already. ("The people"). "Mob" as a contraction I don't think came about until at least the middle of the 19th century. SimonTrew (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlyle

I have a midd 19th century edition of The French Revolution if you want me to check wording there. I don't know when it was first set up in type for that imprint, though, I guess it could be a lot earlier the type is very difficult to modern eyes. It might say on the fronticepiece. If it's at all useful, let me know. I think publication was about 1850 but not entirely sure, hard to tell has typefaces didn't change much until invention of litho-set etc. SimonTrew (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory, at best

This article goes on about how the meaning of fourth estate must be the press because of the reasons cited.... then under what seems a disingenuous heading called "alternative meaning" it states (and cites prof) that this "alternative meaning" was clearly in use 80 years prior to the primary one given for "proof" that it must mean the press.

The fact, as noted in the article, is that the 4th estate is the working class.

The later usage, meaning the press, could just as well be included within the original usage, since journalists are not nobles, monarchs, or clergy, and come from the working class. But to try to narrow it down so specifically to mean only the press, while willfully ignoring acknowledged proof of a larger definition having been in existence almost a century before, renders the credibility of the article in serious doubt.

And note too, that there is a rather well-known painting entitled "the 4th estate" (il quarto stato) by Italian painter Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo - which was created in the period of 1898-1901. The very existence of the painting seems to confirm without any doubt that the term was still in use, meaning the working class as a whole, in the late 19th/early 20th century. Thus the broader definition was not somehow "relinquished" to the narrower one.

The idea that it is only the press is revisionist history... and superfluous.

Jasoneversjohnson (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)jasoneversjohnson

The definitive OED has "now appropriated to the Press...in the application now current" (quote heavily truncated at the "…"). Added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The earliest use of "The Fourth Estate" may be in Michel de Montaigne's Essayes from the late 1500s, and then to refer to a hypothetical estate of lawyers.

that in a politicall government there should be set up a fourth estate of Lawyers, breathsellers and pettifoggers See Wiktionary fourth estate --Edaen (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now that my quoting of Montaigne is ambiguous. I believe he opposed such a fourth estate. The full text--Edaen (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Il quarto stato. by Giuseppe Pellizza

The painting mentioned above--Edaen (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Both these are very relevant for inclusion (and I'll happily do them, with acknowledgements to the finder, if nobody else takes it up), but they don't reflect on the current usage, as cited from the OED.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do! I have made an almost complete rewrite of the Swedish article and rather use the English version for reference. Acknowledgements should go to Widsith on Wiktionary.--Edaen (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please make the edits - any improvement here would be good. And for the record, I live in Italy and I have yet to meet a European, even from the UK, who considers the narrow definition of solely the press to be adequate or accurate, or necessary. As I tried to say before, the press are a part of the 4th estate of non-nobles, non-clerics, and non-monarchy. They are us, they often represent us, but they should not replace us, or push us to some "5th estate" status.... And I would venture to say this is more true and poignant than ever with the advent of blogs -- and this here wiki thingamajig....

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoneversjohnson (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To complicate matters, the press is called tredje statsmakten in Swedish, wich in English would be something like the third branch of government. In French and Italian, the press is called the fourth power and the fourth estate is used for the proletariat. Since this article is about the English expression, the central part should reflect modern usage in English.--Edaen (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Draft re-ordering to bring alternative meanings into the lead section is in preparation. Sandbox if anyone wants to comment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Added to article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

This tag has been applied without justification here on the talk page, so I'll start the discussion: The historical, anecdotal and international information given by the article takes it far beyond a mere dictionary definition and the tag is misplaced. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. (Neutrally-phrased-note: What counts as a "dicdef" is a long-running (2 year) dispute. Current discussion is at WT:NOTDIC.) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not about being a 'mere dictionary definition'. It's about the fact that here the topic of this article (which is defacto defined by the first sentence or so in an article) is defined as the term, rather than the idea. A properly written encyclopedia article is about the idea of a fourth estate as a concept in government theory, rather than, as in a dictionary, the term 'fourth estate'. The article's not that far off being encyclopedic in this sense; you mainly need to lightly rephrase it a bit in the introduction. You could consider merging it with an article on the press, but sometimes the fourth estate isn't the press, so it seems reasonable to keep it separately here.- Wolfkeeper 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see in any way how the lead is a dictionary definition. Its first sentence is(at least it does as I write) "The Fourth Estate is a term referring to the press." I can't think in fewer words how better to express the tone of the article in case someone had hit on (and there are) other Wikipedia articles about fourth estates not related to being an adjunct to authority.

If that is a dictionary definition then I buy another dictionary. "Grub Street", "Hacks", "Pismires and warlocks" are all terms referring to the press, but none of them is a definition. The remaining sentences of the lead clearly introduce that it was from a quote, and the following sections elaborate on the lead. Kinda what an encyclopaedic article is supposed to do, I think. (And for that matter a good newspaper article: sentence first, vertict afterwards, aint it, Alice?)

Si Trew (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, a dicdef is not (necessarily) a dictionary definition; it's an article that is written unencyclopedically in a particular way. You need to read the actual policy, not just use a nickname of the policy and assume that's what it actually says; because it doesn't.- Wolfkeeper 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles very traditionally have a topic that is not a term, and define that topic in the first sentence or two, and then cover that topic in the article. Rocket is about rocket vehicles, not the term rocket (which would have to encompass certain types of salads.) But the principle is quite general; the topic is a concept not a term.- Wolfkeeper 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Very traditional encyclopedias aren't Wikipedia. We have articles on words. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia is actually supposed to be a pretty traditional encyclopedia, but just built by wiki and much, much bigger. Encyclopedias avoid word articles because they don't mix well with the other articles around them.- Wolfkeeper 14:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just returning after a wikibreak. One of User:Wolfkeeper's concerns perhaps could be addressed, as he/she suggests, by substituting in the opening sentence something like: "is the notion of the press as a fourth arm of government". I propose to implement this, subject to other editors' views.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that would improve the article. It is a "term for", or a "name for" [the press], according to every description I can find.
For context, Wolfkeeper is trying to eradicate or rewrite any article that is initially defined as being about "a term for" or "a word for", because he believes that encyclopedias cannot, by definition, ever cover "words". Consensus is against him, as a forthcoming rfc will prove, and as can be seen from looking at any discussion he is currently engaged in (WT:NOTDIC, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Removal of 'exceptions' from ISNOT, etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Wolfkeeper: What do you mean by "Encyclopedias avoid word articles because they don't mix well with the other articles around them." ?? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the context of the initial tagging of this article: interesting! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Something like you suggest should be good Old Moonraker.- Wolfkeeper 22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No recent postings and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary seems not to be reaching a conclusion. As the consensus here seems firmly against the tag I'm taking it away. BTW, my "notion", above, would have actually gone in as "concept": a better word in this context. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit request

An editor complains of "grammar, style, cohesion, tone [and] spelling" deficiencies. Please explain the problems here on the talk page and someone will try to fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

May we start with "byword"? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines this as "something cited as notorious and outstanding", but I don't see anything here to suggest notoriety. Indeed, the toilers in grub street seem quite proud of the epithet. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tag now removed, pending more specific identification of the deficiencies. Note on original editor's talk page. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hazlitt reference...

I don't particularly want to edit the article to reflect this, but William Hazlitt calls Cobbett a "kind of fourth estate in the politics of the country" in The Spirit Of The Age, published in 1825... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.143.231 (talk • contribs) 11 Feb 2006.

Eventually...I got round to this. Thanks for the suggestion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Archer as a source?

In his novel The Fourth Estate Jeffrey Archer wrote "In May 1789, Louis XVI summoned to Versailles a full meeting of the 'Estates General'. The First Estate consisted of three hundred clergy. The Second Estate, three hundred nobles. The Third Estate, six hundred commoners." The book is a fictionalization from episodes in the lives of two real-life Press Barons: Robert Maxwell and Rupert Murdoch.

Firstly, it's a bit odd to quote from a novel -- a work of fiction -- on what happened at an historical event. Secondly, Jeffrey Archer is a convicted perjurer with a reputation for exaggeration and embellishment. Not a reliable source, I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.163.242 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Romney Re-Emergence of term in 2012 Political discourse by Mitt Romney

On July 27, 2012 , Mitt Romney stated to the media;

“I realize that there will be some in the Fourth Estate, or whichever estate, who are far more interested in finding something to write about that is unrelated to the economy, to geopolitics, to the threat of war, to the reality of conflict in Afghanistan today, to a nuclearization of Iran,” Romney said. “They’ll instead try and find anything else to divert from the fact that these last four years have been tough years for our country.”

Romney video clip speaking on Fourth Estate

This usage of the term marks a first in many years in the American political landscape. The media's alleged lack of access to Romney during his July 2012 visits to England, Israel and Poland sparked a tumultuous uproar with one noted media person referring to Romney's treatment of the media as "his personal petting zoo". It is believed that this media uproar contributed to Romney invoking his comments on the "fourth estate".

Invoking the color of colloquial discourse in layman speak comes with tremendous risks as currently be played out in the U. S. Media. Phraseology is important and terms which may be considered "elitist" by the general population should be used at one's own peril. This is a significant event in the political life of Mitt Romney and most worthy of discussion as "fourth estate" re-emerges in our vernacular. Wikipietime (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I contend that the use of the term by Mitt Romney should be a part of the article. The word is re-emerging as indicated by this usage on national television--Wikipietime (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of unknown source quote to start page

The "definition" of the fourth estate at the top of this page seems strangely unwiki-like. It assumes that the fourth estate (meaning the press) exists for the sole purpose of advancing human rights. This is certainly not the case when the press is used as a propaganda machine and/or to further corporate-supporting content. The very fact the quote is from an unauthoritative source is suspect; did some random wikipedia user just write in their own suppositions, assumptions or hopes for the fourth estate? My first impulse was to scrub it but want to put it out there for discussion before taking action if there is, in fact, a reasonable reason to have the article lead off this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.254.127 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourth Estate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140702070821/https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/bradley-manning-transcripts/ to https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/bradley-manning-transcripts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Extremely unclear and poorly written.

This is a bad article. Someone who can summarize information needs to clear it out and reorganize the entire thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.65.100 (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

E.g., This introductory sentence says four in languages of the world but lists only three items. "The equivalent term "fourth power" is somewhat uncommon in English, but it is used in many European languages, including Italian (quarto potere), German (Vierte Gewalt), Spanish (Cuarto poder), and French (Quatrième pouvoir), to refer to a government's separation of powers into legislative, executive, and judicial branches."

--2601:547:B06:1A3C:65B8:C1B0:51F0:18A6 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Those three, plus the fourth - being the subject of this article. (Hohum ^@) 09:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baongocn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)