Talk:Oligarchy

lamens terms

What does it mean???

You probably mean "layman's terms", although your version might soon be adopted by hack3rz. A layman, technically, is a person who is not a cleric (an employee of the church). More generally, it is a person who does not have specialist knowledge of the subject under discussion. "Layman's terms" are therefore words that a non-specialist can understand. --Heron 16:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No question: the bit about "wealth" puts the USA squarely into this slot: OLIGARCHY. So how can their politicians pretend to "bring democracy to the rest of the world" !? hpbo 17:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Commentary on Musk

@Willondon Whether or not sources say something does not make it WP:DUE or even true. Saying that someone has had "extensive influence" on a president's second term that isn't even a month in is plainly unreasonable and against WP:RECENT.

Implying that Musk's net worth has increased by a certain amount because Republicans won the 2024 election is very clearly WP:SYNTH. The cited Independent article does not make that connection whatsoever. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus: You appear to be very clearly an SPA created to push Musk's POV. Nowhere in the edit wars, talk page discussions, and even in your block, a shocking résumé for someone with less than 200 edits, has a single person agreed with your POV. If you continue with your WP:TENDENTIOUS POV-pushing, I will have to report you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Kindly do not cast aspersions. Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A large number of accounts that have never been involved with this page are suddenly very interested now that it mentions Elon Musk. 195.99.42.55 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The cited Independent article does not make that connection whatsoever. Neither do we. Like the source ("Elon Musks’s wealth has jumped more than $170 billion since Election Day, according to a Washington Post analysis, capping off a year that saw the tech billionaire go all in supporting Donald Trump and Republican candidates with a combined $277 million contribution."), we state he contributed $277m and his net worth rose more than $170B after the election. Who do you believe is practicing synthesis? It would be alright for the source to propose a causal connection, if that's their analysis; but as you said, it doesn't. _signed, Willondon (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The article currently says:

Musk invested an estimated $277 million into the 2024 election, and personally gained a reported $170 billion within weeks of the Republican party's win.

This language implies that the gain of $170 billion has something to do with his investment in the election, which is indeed synthesis. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Now we can see the comparison between what the source says, and what the article says. The same, as far as I can see, without plagiarizing. If there is synthesis in juxtaposing the two facts, then it's from the Independent, which is their perogative as they do their analysis. I did change the word "invested" to the source's word "contributed". _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The point I am making is that pointing out changes in Musk's net worth has absolutely nothing to do with the article, which is about oligarchy, therefore making the mention WP:UNDUE. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The sentence acts as supporting evidence to the previous sentence, explaining in more detail how Musk was a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I can understand the portion of the sentence mentioning his contributions to the election, which is why I left it intact with my reverted edit, but the second half of the sentence has nothing to do with the election unless it is meant to imply that Musk's net worth increased because of the results of the election, which is a dubious claim. And not to get into the weeds too much, but about half of Musk's gains from the post-election rise in TSLA have now been erased, so at the very least I'm guessing that the $170 billion figure is no longer accurate. Big Thumpus (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

If no source that describes Musk as an oligarch or discusses such a description points out those numbers, then neither should we. That is synthesis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That section also says Musk contributed an estimated $277 million into the 2024 election, and personally gained a reported $170 billion within weeks of the Republican party's win. This is cited to two articles which make no mention of "oligarchy" or "oligarch", making it WP:SYNTH. This was authored by Alexgreenhouse. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Clearly much of this banter could have been avoided if the article would have included other examples such as George Soros and Bill Gates, whom both have had far more influence, far longer than Musk. 169.136.196.106 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree Sailordiana2026 (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Were not Jeff Bezos and Zuckerberg standing up there on the dais with Trump at the inauguration? Sam Altman and some other tech big-wigs were guests at the White House shortly thereafter. Why does Musk the oligarch have so much weight that it merits two sentences and these other guys don't get a mention at all? Bill Gates has exerted some weight in politics as well.Manuductive (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

It's also bizarre to mention Musk and not Thiel, who has been more often and reliably described as an oligarch in American politics, often alongside discussions of Musk that stop short of describing the latter as an oligarch. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Why not mention Russian oligarchs or historical oligarchs like the Rockefellers? If this article was filled with examples of other individually named oligarchs I think it would be easier to justify inclusion of Musk. However, to just include Musk and no other named individuals or no historic US examples gives the appearance that the inclusion is based on contemporary politics rather than as the best illustrative example of the type. Given the current article depth I would advocate removing the Musk section entirely. Springee (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. First of all, Musk is richer than all the Russian oligarchs combined, so surely he warrants inclusion more than any of them. Second, I just added a reference that specifically supports the statement that people have described Musk as an oligarch. Feel free to agree, disagree, analyze, etc. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Being rich is not how we determine dueness for inclusion, and the notion that Musk’s net worth makes him more due for inclusion than any Russian oligarch betrays either a total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, or of the literature on oligarchy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: There was honestly no need to make that next revert. The article included not only Musk, but also the Rockefellers, both cited to reliable sources that explicitly say they have been described as such. It is not, as you say, one against four. Willondon has supported my viewpoint as well, as well as the IP. That makes three against four – not really the 1AM situation you described on the talk page. Alright, time to make my case I guess. All the other sections without main articles have examples. (The Russia and Ukraine sections don't need examples since anyone wanting them can easily click the conveniently linked main articles.) The Philippines section gives Dennis Uy as an example. The Iran section gives the Velayat-e-faqih as an example. Since the United States has no main article titled American oligarchs, it ought to have an example as well. In fact, since the history of American businessmen having influence over the government is long, it ought to have two examples: one historical, one current. There is a gargantuan body of sources supporting both statements, and it's likely that our readers who are searching for the United States section of the Oligarchy article probably want to see examples of American oligarchs. I don't get why you just keep reverting when I have addressed every one of your points. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

All that IP did was imply a conspiracy. Is that your position?

I have reverted your additions because there is no consensus to include them. For my part, I find this article has way undue weight on the United States, which is a minor aspect of the study of oligarchy in the world, and the example of Musk is a poor one anyways, since he is much more rarely described contemporarily as an oligarch than Thiel. But in any case, unless sources discussing oligarchy in America generally balance historical examples with current ones—and from my reading, they do not—there is no reason to shoehorn in a contemporary example. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The IP reverted a previous removal of the outstanding text. Anyway, there is a large body of sources describing Musk as an oligarch and a large body of sources describing Thiel as an oligarch. Of the two, Musk's case is more clear-cut (appointed to an important government position by Trump) and more likely to be known by readers (even before the whole Trump thing, Musk's article had ten times more pageviews than Thiel's). Your claim that he is much more rarely described contemporarily as an oligarch than Thiel is incorrect; Musk returns 1.2 million results while Thiel returns a mere 31,000. The United States section reads like something was violently torn out – the second source cited for Biden's farewell address mentions Musk by name, saying that Biden implied him when speaking of oligarchs. Thus the natural successor to that sentence would talk about the influential oligarch Biden spoke of. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Your arguments for inclusion (more likely to be already known by readers; more clear-cut per your analysis) have nothing to do with policy. That’s second to the question of whether the article can be improved with prose about Musk, though. I think this will be most productive if you draft here and seek feedback on the proposed text. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's go, then. The proposed version is hatted. Hope you like it. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a long history of wealthy businessmen acting as American oligarchs. This is not in the cited source; appears to be editorializing.

One of the first early oligarchs was businessman John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world by the turn of the 20th century, whose family influenced the government for decades by discouraging high taxation on the upper class and creating family trusts. I don't see this in the cited source either—there are two passing mentions of the Rockefellers in a quite brief article.

The Rockefeller family became further intertwined with American politics with the rise of Nelson Rockefeller, John's grandson, who served as U.S. vice president. This is cited to a biography blurb of Nelson Rockefeller that does not mention oligarchy. The cited source also does not say anything about NR's vice presidency further intertwining his family with American politics.

Businessman Elon Musk, a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has been described as an oligarch due to his extensive influence on Trump during his second presidency. The AP source never describes Musk as an oligarch nor reports that Musk has been described as an oligarch. Same for the NPR source. The FT source attributes the assessment of Musk as an oligarch to Lingelbach; that consideration should be repeated in the WP prose. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and Musk contributed an estimated $277 million into the 2024 election, creating a "super" PAC to promote Trump's campaign. is cited to three sources that do not mention oligarchy at all. This is WP:SYNTH. If no article on the designation of Musk as an oligarch in American politics discusses this contribution/gain stat, then neither can Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a huge number of sources that directly call Musk an oligarch: appeared in seconds. For Rockefeller: . For Nelson, we can take that out. Also, the statement about Musk's contributions is not even remotely SYNTH; the sentence is there to support the statement that he was a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There are a huge number of sources that directly call Musk an oligarch Then cite them.

I'm not sure how you intend to use that Mother Jones piece—if you revise your proposed addition to use it, I can give feedback on it.

The Musk statement is absolutely synth. This article is about oligarchy; this proposed section is about Musk being described as an oligarch. Articles that have nothing to do with oligarchy cannot be cited to imply that Musk is an oligarch. Again: if no reliable sources are using these numbers in relation to discussions of Musk as an oligarch, then neither will we. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

, explicitly mentions Musk in relation to oligarchy, so that can replace the other AP source. It is using these numbers in relation to discussions of Musk as an oligarch, at least as far as I can tell. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 00:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you editing the draft as you go here? Because this article needs to be used carefully if it is used, as it never calls Musk an oligarch, nor reports that he is being described as one. It also makes no mention of Musk's return, only his donation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended content

Further information: Income inequality in the United States § Democracy and society, and Politics of the United States § Oligarchy

The Bosses of the Senate, corporate interests as giant money bags looming over senators

Several commentators and scholars have suggested that the United States demonstrates characteristics of an oligarchy, particularly in relation to the concentration of wealth and political influence among a small elite, as exemplified by the list of top (political party) donors.

Mother Jones described the term robber baron, used to describe late 19th-century American businessmen who influenced the government, as a synonym for an oligarch. The term was used in reference to wealthy Americans of the time, such as John D. Rockefeller, the richest man in the world by the turn of the 20th century, whose family influenced the government for decades by discouraging high taxation on the upper class and creating family trusts.

Economist Simon Johnson argued that the rise of an American financial oligarchy became particularly prominent following the 2008 financial crisis. This financial elite has been described as wielding significant power over both the economy and political decisions. Former President Jimmy Carter in 2015 characterized the United States as an "oligarchy with unlimited political bribery" following the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision, which removed limits on donations to political campaigns.

In 2014, a study by political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University argued that the United States' political system does not primarily reflect the preferences of its average citizens. Their analysis of policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002 suggested that wealthy individuals and business groups held substantial influence over political decisions, often sidelining the majority of Americans. While the United States maintains democratic features such as regular elections, freedom of speech, and widespread suffrage, the study noted that policy decisions are disproportionately influenced by economic elites. However, the study received criticism from other scholars, who argued that the influence of average citizens should not be discounted and that the conclusions about oligarchic tendencies were overstated. Gilens and Page defended their research, reiterating that while they do not label the United States an outright oligarchy, they found substantial evidence of economic elites dominating certain areas of policy-making.

In his presidential farewell address on January 15, 2025, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden warned that an oligarchy was taking shape in America which threatened democracy, basic rights, and freedom, aided by a tech-industrial complex. Businessman Elon Musk, a close collaborator of Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has been described as an oligarch due to his extensive influence on Trump during his second presidency. Musk contributed over $200 million into the 2024 election, creating a "super" PAC to promote Trump's campaign.

References

I will add this to the article tomorrow unless someone objects. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition, because, per WP:ONUS, you need consensus to add contested content—not a mere absence of objections to your draft over the course of two days. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

If you had a problem with my draft, you should have objected. Can the article be improved with information about specific American oligarchs (Musk and the Rockefeller family)? Yes, it can. If you had a problem with my draft, you should say so. You have made no argument to why the information should not be included in the article, and I await such an argument. Otherwise, please stop policing the article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 23:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

My objections are explained above. In general, your prose fails verification. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well-put; agreed ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I still object to saying that someone has had "extensive influence" over an administration when such little time has passed. I feel like that's only something that can be said with certainty with a reasonable amount of hindsight. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk has had extensive influence on the administration so far. However, "so far" is usually inappropriate encyclopedic language, and any limits such as "extensive influence in the first month" imply an ending to the period of extended influence and will need to be updated as said period continues. If you have any suggestions on how to refine the phrase by all means share them. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC on Musk

Should the United States section mention Elon Musk? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the above section, in a manner similar to the hatted draft above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 17:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely! Musk epitomizes the modern day robber baron and oligarch.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• Not if the section is anything like the hatted draft, which is full of unverified claims and original research. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Also, this is a bad RFC, as it fails WP:RFCBEFORE. The above discussion is about a specific mass of prose, not about whether any mention of Elon Musk is appropriate for this article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies if I'm being blunt here, but the above discussion was hardly about a specific mass of prose, I tried many different wordings, all of which were rejected by you. In those arguments, you made many comments about how Musk should not be included in the article, instead arguing for inclusion of Thiel. Nowhere did you suggest any possible wordings to include Thiel in the article, nowhere did you propose any different sources that might work for Musk. This indicates your complete opposition to changing anything about the article, rather than trying to constructively and collaboratively contribute. In short, not even remotely a bad RFC. If you oppose, !vote oppose, instead of trying to needlessly shut down the discussion process. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  The above discussion is absolutely not a discussion of whether there should be any mention of Elon Musk in the article. It began and ended with discourses on your proposed/attempted additions to the article. My participation in the above definitely doesn't reflect an opposition to change in the article—lots can and should be changed, and a mention of Musk may be shown to be due. But the above discussion, which was about a very poor piece of prose that found no consensus for inclusion, is not an WP:RFCBEFORE for this RFC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  You forgot to mention that you are the person who determined that there was no consensus. In fact, there was consensus: four editors in support (five if you include an IP who reverted a removal of the outstanding text), and not counting an editor who got topic-banned halfway through the discussion, only two in opposition. However, to generate a clearer consensus, I opened this RFC. Also, stating that you didn't oppose the inclusion of Musk is absurd. You said that the example of Musk is a poor one anyways and one of your supporters, Springee, said, I would advocate removing the Musk section entirely. Pretty clearly a discussion about inclusion of Musk. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, anyone interested in the question of whether the above discussion is about the inclusion of Musk at all or about a chunk of text and issues with verifiability and OR should give it a read, and especially attempt to verify claims made in the hatted draft from its cited sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose nowhere near WP:Due! Also not seeing any academic sources proposed which is pretty poor. Media is complete junk for an article on an academic concept. I suggest you wait for academic sources to come in over the course of the year. There’s no rush, encyclopaedia articles don’t have to represent present-day realities, and they shouldn’t. Suggest someone else double checks for OR, but that’d be pretty worrying if true

Kowal2701 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• No academic sources are cited for the January 15 speech by Joe Biden. Besides, many academic sources are available, here's just one, and another. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  One of those is a podcast, the other one is good. Given the amount of literature on the US government, we would need a fair bit more than that Kowal2701 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, at least unless many more and better sources are provided. For such well-researched topic we should use high-quality scholarly sources and try to be neutral. Musk is not the only billionaire who has been influencing the US politics (Kochs, Soros, etc.). Alaexis_¿question? 22:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

History / Ancient Greece

The section on the history of oligarchy in ancient Greece includes the following sentence, which I fear can be very misleading: "Although the citizens tolerated the oligarchy for decades, the involvement of the hated Spartans in the defense of Athens led some of the influential elite, led by Cleisthenes, to defect to supporting democracy." One main reason why this can be misleading is the use of the term "hated Spartans", which suggests that Spartan involvement was unwelcome. This, however stands in stark contrast to the account of Herodotus, who explicitly mentions the efforts of the Athenian noble family of the Alcmaeonidai (whose leading member was Cleisthenes) to secure Spartan assistance in order to overthrow the tyranny of Hippias. The reasons behind the reforms proposed by Cleisthenes are much more complex and relate to the power struggle between the leading aristorcratic houses of Athens in the aftermath of the Spartan intervention that deposed Hippias. 195.64.172.16 (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I have attempted to clarify this power struggle. I hope it is clearer now. Chicdat (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! The first paragraph in this section has indeed become much clearer and accurate. The second paragraph, however, I fear is quite problematic, particularly the following few lines: "Athens ended complete rule by the rich in 493 BC, when a commoner named Themistocles became archon. He ruled Athens for over twenty years, and is best known as the victor of the Greco-Persian Wars. When Themistocles fell around 471 BC, the Areopagus, an aristocratic council which was formerly the most powerful body in Athens, began to gain more prominence, spearheaded by conservative and anti-democratic politician Cimon, a strategos who oversaw the aggressive expansion of the Athenian Empire amid closer relations with Sparta;" There are a number of problematic points. For instance, all leading politicians were typically of aristocratic descent and in possession of immense personal wealth even under the radical democracy of Pericles and his successors. Pericles himself is a typical example, but also Nicias and the prodigal Alcibiades. Also, Themistocles is very unlikely to have been a "commoner", albeit he was certainly not a prominent aristocrat. Furthermore, it seems quite misleading to characterize Cimon as an anti-democratic politician, considering that he was elected to the office of strategos by the Athenian Assembly for some 15 years in a row. By definition, therefore, he was undisputedly a popular leader and his policy had the explicit approval of the majority of the Athenian Assembly. One important omission from this narrative is that democracy conferred a unique military advantage, in that it permitted the operation of a massive fleet, a point first discerned by Themistocles. As the naval power of Athens grew, so did the capacity of the poor rowers to claim political power. 195.64.172.16 (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"all leading politicians were typically of aristocratic descent and in possession of immense personal wealth" As explained in the relevant section, the notorious demagogue Cleon had no aristocratic background, he was instead a businessman.: "Cleon was a tradesman—a leather-tanner. [His enemies] Thucydides and Aristophanes came from the upper classes, predisposed to look down on the commercial classes." Dimadick (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely right to note that Cleon was not an aristocrat, but this does not mean he was not a very wealthy and successful business man. In fact in Aristophanes' "The Knights" Cleon is satirized as a rich leather merchant who uses his money and rhetorical skills to manipulate the Assembly. The point being, that personal wealth continued to be a de facto prerequisite for a political career under the full democracy. 195.64.172.7 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have attempted to incorporate all this into the article. Have you considered creating an account? You are clearly very knowledgeable on this subject, and a lot of our non-military classical articles are sorely lacking sources or important information. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the changes, for your kind words and for the invitation to create an account. Unfortunately I do not often get the chance to spend time on this, but I will consider it. On substance, you are absolutely right to note that Cleon was not an aristocrat, but this does not mean he was not a very wealthy and successful business man. In fact in Aristophanes' "The Knights" Cleon is satirized as a rich leather merchant who uses his money and rhetorical skills to manipulate the Assembly. The point being, that personal wealth continued to be a de facto prerequisite for a political career under the full democracy. Many thanks again for this exchange and for all the edits that I think have improved this section significantly. 195.64.172.7 (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Alterations to Wikipedia articles become ridiculous

I constantly notice Wikipedia articles being altered and not in a good way...often information is being left out and the 'language' being used becomes 'Juvenile'

Whomever altered the 'Oligarchy' Article....how dare you change this:

"Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) 'rule by few'; from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few' and ἄρχω (arkho) 'to rule or to command') is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may or may not be distinguished by one or several characteristics, such as nobility, fame, wealth, education, or corporate, religious, political, or military control.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich, for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy. In the early 20th century Robert Michels developed the theory that democracies, like all large organisations, tend to turn into oligarchies. In his "Iron law of oligarchy" he suggests that the necessary division of labour in large organisations leads to the establishment of a ruling class mostly concerned with protecting their own power."

To this:

"Oligarchy (from Ancient Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía) 'rule by few'; from ὀλίγος (olígos) 'few' and ἄρχω (árkhō) 'to rule, command') is a form of government in which power rests with a small number of people. Leaders of such regimes are often referred to as oligarchs, and generally are characterised by having a high amount of nobility or wealth."

What's your game? If there is an error in it you alter the error....you do not re-write the whole article to suit your opinion/ needs. It isn't a propaganda site. 2A00:23C7:C84:8401:E52C:73FE:3490:3D8A (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for writing this. I'm not sure exactly how this is rewriting the article to suit [editors'] opinion/ needs. The lead was changed by Plasticwonder earlier this month because the previous lead was terrible. The goal of a lead section is for information to be left out: this is because lead sections are meant to be summaries of the article's body. I agree that the section could use a little copyediting (e.g. high amount of nobility), but overall I think it's an improvement over the old one. Of course, you can edit the article yourself if you feel like there are any improvements that need to be made. Also just remember to always be civil, as it seems like you're casting aspersions at editors attempting to improve the article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this wonderful response. I have emandated the portion which you have rightfully pointed out as being problematic. If only the OP of this thread was less abrasive in his tone, I might have understood what his point was. Plasticwonder (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@OP I agree with this sentiment fully and this should be reviewed by admins if this goes too far. I added a section on how modern oligarchy uses lobbying to reach their ends. It didn't even take long for that info about lobbying to be completely hidden where I can't find it anymore.

Am putting up a permanent watchlist as whoever deleted it would have no good inherent reason. What kind of editor censors even the fact that lobbying is used by oligarchies? I know that Wikipedia editing needs to adhere to good faith assumptions but if their end actions has the practical effect of removing scores of information that happens to be critical of oligarchies- and are not able to give any real reasoning for the deletion - then that is not okay and they should explain themselves. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Admin here. You're making accusations of bad faith, when other contributors have explained how and why things were changed. Please provide specific suggestions based on reliable sources for changes you would like to see made, rather than taking pot shots at other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I am specifically raising a concern about what happened to my lobbying edit. Regardless of the editor's intentions, large swaths of information was removed without fair reasoning and not notifying the editor who added it or raising it on talk. - that is not cool. (Which is what happened). And was about to make my own thread but saw this guy make a similar one.

And in regards to the top thread, I agree with OP that original summary is fine as it should be an overview indeed. It should cover the fact that historically the older oligarchies didn't need democracy and were able to use violence, oppression and tyranny to get their way. But later on in more modern era as more countries become more democratic, they are still able to succeed to become oligarchies because the economic elite use different tools to protect their interests, "including lobbying". That overview gives readers a good understanding of all oligarchies from past to present.

And if there is a reason to completely remove lobbying from this article despite it's central to the topic for modern day oligarchy - the appropriate approach would be to explain that reasoning on the talk page rather than simply removing with poor reasoning and without discussion. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page.

For starters, much of the content you added was already included within the article. Secondly, the above user was simply being accusatory against edits to the lede, and it was probably a better idea to make a new thread.

Thirdly, I, nor any other editor, are entitled to give any user who adds content a "reason" as to why it was removed. Content here is not owned by anyone and can be removed without question provided a proper edit summary is given, which I gave. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 18:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I recalled that you first moved my edits down (with no edit summary). I didn't challenge as you didn't remove it tho thought it was not a good move. Later on after many months afterwards - you removed that same info that tells readers how economic elites can exercise influence in modern democratic systems - including through lobbying No reasoning was ever really given. I am not here to talk about your intentions but that info was directly relevant to the topic and should not had been removed especially within discussion on talk. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it is relevant enough for the lede and not the section which it is more appropriate in? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the lede is for summarization, not for specific claims. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The single biggest concern is you deleting massive amounts of information from article completely without an edit summary or a fair explanation or raising it on talk. Explain to me why this edit is fully deleted by you? What reason did you provide? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I gave an edit summary. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I also explained my reasons in this thread? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No you did not. If you did, pray tell what is your reasoning to remove all that info about lobbying completely from the article? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That text largely looked as if it were written by an LLM. Did you use any LLMs in making that content? If not, I will reupload it. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not. Instead of making accusations of bad faith -; you likely violated the 3RR rule by undoing at least more than 7 of my edits in one day and you explicitly did not claim LLM as your reasoning when you removed it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

And even if it was (it wasn't) - you could have told me and I would have gladly rewritten it if that was the issue. But you didn't give me any reasoning so I request you to restore. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I will restore it when you revert your latest edit. I politely told you about re adding content without consensus. I also told you the lede is for summarization, not specific claims.

And I did not do 7 reverts. I did 3 total, not counting the revert on myself to include your content. You on the other hand did break 3rr, so I am asking you now to revert. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:57, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

7 is more an understatement. Likely you collectively undid vast number of my individual edits in one move in a single day and I am talking about July 2026. Also that's really unfair and you should apologize. For the record, I wasn't able to easily undo your massive revert in one go. If you just removed a small paragraph then I could have easily undid your one revert in only one move. But it's because of this flimsy mobile platform that I was unable to easily copy and paste a Vast amount of information you had deleted. So it was easier for me to kiat move them in fragmented pieces instead of trying to copy the entire deleted info and restore it in one move. So technically I undid exactly only ONE of your massive revert of my many edits. It does not fairly count as breaking the 3Rr rule. Also I restored someone's lede. So in total, I only did 2 reverts if you evaluate it carefully. And - my latest addition to lede wasn't even restoring anyone's edit. So I am definitely not under any obligation to remove it. But I have reverted myself this one time and hold you in good Faith that you keep your promise above and also this time you will fairly discuss. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Key word "in one move". That means 1 revert.

Also, you said that "and I am talking about July 2026." as to my edits in question. That does not fit the criteria of 3rr my friend. 3RR refers to a 24 hour period. Even so, one of my reverts today re added your content.

Your claim that your edits today "does not fairly count as breaking the 3Rr rule." is not true, as you added information in the lede after I had reverted you, and when my edit summary was not enough, I had to (politely) messaged you on your talk page, where as other less distinguished users would have gotten a flat out warning.

Nevertheless, I restored the material, and will open up a broader discussion on the lede section ASAP. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 20:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Fine then lol. We will agree you did one revert despite it undid many of my reverts. You deleted many paragraphs in one edit. And I undid that SINGLE revert today and that should also count as one revert.

But it's because you deleted way too much - I have real computing issues with copy and pasting everything you deleted in one edit. I really tried to copy it all but couldn't. So insead of copying and pasting in one move - I decided to just do it in smaller chunks. Given that context - that obviously should not count as being the equivalent of many full reverts, but only all count as one full revert of your massive revert. Let's move on to next issue. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

And thank you for restoring my content back in. I see you also adjusted it to make it easier reading and I have no issues with that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem mate.

What changes do you want made to the lead? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 21:11, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the thread. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 21:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If you didn't want it in the lede then that's fine. I saw you moving it from the lede and I didn't challenge.

But then - you later went on to remove all the information about lobbying from the article completely and I do not see any substantive reasoning given for doing so. What concerns me most is this happened many months after my edits, when I was no longer active on the page, without any apparent discussion on the talk page. I am not commenting on your intentions, but I think such a substantial removal of info should have been explained and discussed. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Einstein and overview

@Plasticwonder Today I added in Einstein into lede. That info was never there before but I feel it's very relevant as his paper talks about control of mass media by private capitalists making it difficult for citizens to arrive at objective conclusions, and political parties being influenced by wealthy financial backers resulting in an "oligarchy of private capital". I can be fine if you feel he shouldn't be in the lede but would prefer you mention him in the body. The info is sourced, relevant and pretty historically significant.

However the lede should expand the rather narrow criteria of oligarchies. Scholars argue that countries like USA function as oligarchies despite power in their gov isn't actually held by a small number of people. So in reality - scholars nowadays use the concept more broadly to describe systems in which wealthy elites exercise disproportionate political influence without directly controlling government. The lede should minimally reflect that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I propose something like this to expand to the traditional definition of oligarchy where oligarchy don't need to hold any political office or be within a system that is ruled by a small few; - While traditionally used to refer to a rule by a small group, some scholars also use the concept more broadly to describe modern political systems in which the wealthy elites yields disproportionate political power. Under this system, an oligarchy can coexist with democratic institutions and doesn't require the wealthy to hold formal government positions to have power. Feel free to workshop and improve on that draft.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I am more than happy to support that going into the lede, but do you have a source for that which corroborates the claim? Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 16:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The sources and info are largely synonymous to what you deleted, restored and even re-wrote on yesterday. You are meant to read what you remove or restore.

Must I really add more? As you see in this info and sources here - scholars use the term to describe USA and other modern democracies of having functioned as oligarchies by allowing the rich to have major influence. They outlined they do not need to be part of the gov or hold office but can use campaign funding and lobbying to have disproportionate political influence. They do not rely on the classical definition of a gov officially controlled by a few but rather are saying they can co-exist in democracies in modern age. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's a refined proposal along with included citations this time - In the 21st century, scholars have argued that a functional oligarchy can exercise disproportionate political influence without directly being part of the government, using mechanisms including lobbying and election campaign financing to influence political decisions. Research has also found that wealthy and affluent citizens exert disproportionate influence in political decision-making in numerous surveyed countries. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You have my blessing mate. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 00:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I added your proposal for the lede. Feel free to edit however you please. Cheers. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 01:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You do get the purpose where the edit is not only to show there is a classical definition during Aristotle time (already shown on lede) but there is the also the modern scholarly use.

Today there is no system where a couple of oligarcies hold the most powerful position in government. But scholars use the term to describe a system where ultra rich group do not hold office or participate in governance directly but influence it disproportionately to suit their specific wealth protection needs at the cost of the larger public.

The lede should minimally explain both classical and modern usage of the terms but I suppose your partial addition of my proposal kinda reaches that point good enough. So I won't make changes except for one small edit to be faithful to the source - . And thank you for your kind words above. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Chicdat, apologies for the ping, but do you support these changes? You are an active editor here and I would like your input.Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 03:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It looks like the changes are probably improvements to the article. The "Political science" section should probably be moved up, and I think the paragraph at the end of the "United States" section is probably redundant to what follows. The article feels more consistent with modern scholarship now, although to make this anything resembling a complete article, a lot of work needs to still be done. Looking at articles like Democracy and Autocracy, this article has a long way to go, and any progress toward that point is definitely an improvement. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:32, 1 September 2026 (UTC)