Talk:Technocracy

Potential Sources

Smyth, William Henry. "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy," Industrial Management (57) 1919. Stabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the xzame time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 41-52. Veblen, Thornstein. Engineers and the Price System. New York: Viking Press, 1944. Towne, Henry R. "The Engineer as an Economist," Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1886.

Elon Musk's Grandfather

Should Elon Musk's grandfather be mentioned as an early Technocrat? Wasn't a major plan of the technocrats to make Latin America a technocracy? Neither of these subjects is mentioned in the article 70.26.26.4 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

See Technocracy movement. – Kaihsu (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I'm thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. In its current form, the article is relatively short and heavily focused on historical discussions, which comprise most of the body of the article except for the section "Critiques" and the first paragraph of the section "Characteristics". As a result, many central topics get little to no attention. A common theme in academic discussions of technocracy is its comparison with and relation to other political approaches, such as democracy and populism, so a section or subsection on this topic would be beneficial. The article currently has a section on critical perspectives but lacks a comparable discussion of supporting views, which should also be included to ensure neutrality. The article should also discuss different types of technocracy, such as whether experts directly rule, whether administrative procedures are technocratic, and whether governance relies heavily on technology.

While the Technocracy movement in North America in the 1930s was an important event in the history of technocracy, having a full section on this gives undue weight to a single episode in a much broader historical trajectory. Having a unified history section that treats the technocracy movement as one among many developments would be more balanced. It would be good to have a definition section to explain the different meanings of the term (e.g. as a separate form of government vs as a tendency within other forms of government), key features (e.g. expertise, science, evidence, elitism, value-neutrality), and overlapping terms (e.g. meritocracy and epistocracy). This section could also have a short paragraph on the etymology of the term instead of the current full section on the history of the term, which probably violates WP:PROPORTION. The article also has some rather questionable claims that should probably be removed, such as characterizing Facebook as a "technocratic nation-state".

There are more issues to consider, but they can be addressed later since the points mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this topic but I've been reading a lot about China lately and how it's a perfect example of a technocracy. Not a pure technocracy, but many leaders within the system do have a technical background, unlike what you often see in the West. The difference between democratic plurality and technocratic efficiency might be interesting to see reflected in the article. I see you already thought about that. These two forms often don't go together, because technocracy, in its most optimal form, contains elements such as centralization, long-term planning, and a certain obedience of the people. However, what I explain here doesn't mean that one form is better than the other for governing the people. Both forms have their advantages and disadvantages, and you can't objectively judge one as better than the other. Again I'm not an expert but a very interesting you're planning to overhaul this article and I wish you good luck. Coldbolt (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Coldbolt, thanks for the feedback! I agree that the tension between technocracy and democracy is complex and deserves a better coverage in the article. They are usually treated as competitors but some sources try to reconcile them along the lines that the people choose the goals and the technocrats choose the means of implementation. This will be tricky to cover in a balanced manner since there are also other tensions to consider, like technocracy vs populism, so it will take me some more time to get a better overview of the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Technocracy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 18:54, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Interesting topic from a talented editor. Looking forward to reviewing this. Bear with me as I mill through it over the coming days. Given the article's traffic and its vital status, I hope you won't mind that I'll be looking at this one under the microscope a little more than your average GA. Best, ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ThaesOfereode and thanks for reviewing this nomination! It's an important article and, depending how it goes, I may try to get it to FA, so I would welcome a detailed review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Going to come back to the lede at the end:

Definition

• Link Political action?

  I'm not sure. It redirects to Social action, which seems to be technical term used by Max Weber, so it may be too specific for our purposes. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• instrumental rationality – Can we maybe clarify what instrumental means here? I'm not sure I'm clear on it myself actually.

  I added a footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• pure technocracy is rare – Rare? If defined by how you did in the previous sentence, I'd say it's never happened or at least that it certainly isn't happening now.

  I think you are right about the strict sense of the term. I changed it to a slightly stronger formulation that is also used later in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Leadership style?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• such as a democratically elected leader who relies heavily on expert advice, or a central bank in which unelected officials set monetary policy based on technical criteria – Both are great examples, but I think it's missing the thing I maybe most associate with a technocrat: appointing technical experts rather than popular figures.

  That's kind of what the central bank example was supposed to cover. I changed it from "officials" to "experts" to make this point clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Resource allocation?

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• If you're gonna link science, you'd probably better link Efficiency too.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• privileging quantifiable outcomes – I might bring "privileging" down a couple SAT points for WP:ONEDOWN's sake; perhaps "prioritizing", though I suspect a more periphrastic phrase might be more accessible (e.g., "placing emphasis on").

  I went with "and give priority to quantifiable results". Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• cost-benefit analysis → cost–benefit analysis – MOS:DASH

  Fixed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Partisan (politics) or partisan interests of specific groups to Interest group (vel sim.)

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Advocates emphasize the method's objective and impartial character – I would say Advocates of technocracy (vel sim.) to disambiguate it from the general concept of an advocate more generally (as in the end of the preceding sentence).

  Clarified. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• value-neutrality – Not sure this needs the hyphen.

  I've seen both but you may be right that without is more common. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Anti-pluralism – Delink the "anti" part per WP:EGG

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• It reflects the commitment to the singular interest of the long-term social welfare of the whole community in contrast to political processes that mediate among competing interests and preferences of distinct groups. – Surely a fellow with your interests can see that Utilitarianism (or some similar theory) may fit nicely somewhere in here.

  While I personally agree with you, the sources rarely make that connection between technocracy and utilitarianism. Maybe it is because there are so many version of utilitarianism. When the sources make the connection, they usually focus on negative utilitarianism (minimize suffering). Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• I feel the need to say you ought to italicize technocrat and technotopia per MOS:WAW, but I feel a strange sense of déjà vu that we may have discussed something similar before.

  Your sense of déjà vu is correct, see the passage starting with "Italics seem unpredictable" at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agnosticism/archive1. I think we would need italics if we talked about the words technocrat and technotopia (e.g. The word technocrat means...) rather than use the terms in ordinary prose (e.g. A technocrat is someone who...). Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• the ancient Greek words τέχνη (tekhne) – Capitalize "Ancient Greek" (it is a proper noun while "ancient Greek" is not). I recommend an acute accent on the transliteration of the first epsilon (and the alpha in kratos), but the transliteration of the eta needs to have a macron.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• meaning 'rule' – Well... it actually means 'power' or 'strength'; the English derivation means 'rule (by)'. The term κᾰνών would be 'rule' (whence canon, as in canon law of the Catholic Church)

  I added the meaning 'power' as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• The engineer William H. Smyth is usually credited with coining the modern meaning of the term in 1919. – Given that he doesn't have a page, can we say anything more about this guy? American or British? Why he was in a position to be coining such a term? What he meant originally as compared to now? The context in which he came to coin it?

  I added an additional sentence on Smyth. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Piping Technocracy movement with "technocratic movement" seems unnecessary. Doesn't really feel like a WP:NOTBROKEN issue.

  I changed it to "technocracy movement" since this seems to be the more common term. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

More to come. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Areas and approaches

• approaches to governance – Link Forms of government?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• accessible evidence – Accessible how and to whom? I wouldn't say public access to info has any meaningful bearing on technocracy.

  The point was more to express that decent evidence can be accessed in general, not necessarily by the general public. I changed it to "reliable evidence", which fits better. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• I might specify whether central banking is a national efforts or international one, though I imagine this has some overlap.

  We could add "within a country" after "base interest rate" to clarify that they tend to be more national. I'm hesitant because this is not general and the image of the European central bank to the right of the passage is a counterexample. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• For clarity's sake, I might replace "employment figures" with a linked unemployment rates, unless other metrics are pertinent for discussion here.

  Done. There are more employment figures to consider, but this is given as an example, so we may as well be more specific. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Centralization

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Another facet is the integration of modern technology into classrooms – Link either Technology integration or Educational technology (or both, I suppose).

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link civil service.

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• This approach contrasts with models in which technocrats have direct authority. – Uh, WP:POSA?

  I reformulated the passage to make it more informative. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• technocratic power resides more in administrative mechanisms – My heart is telling me this should be "mechanics" rather than "mechanisms" though my brain is having difficulty articulating why. Feel free to tell my heart to shove it.

  I think both can work. To my ears, "mechanics" sounds a little more like an area of study in physics, so I kept "mechanisms". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Are we considering algocracies and cyberocracies as forms of technocracy or allied forms of government? In either event, we should make that clear. Similarly, are we calling Keynesians and neolibs technocrats? Or are we describing some technocratic approaches as having "Keynsian" or "neoliberal" branches?

  Unfortunately, our sources do not clearly answer the question about algocracies and cyberocracies. Each of these terms has several definitions and the answer probably depends on which definitions you pick. For example, Ronfeldt 1992 gives two definition of cyberocracy: one explicitly relates it to technocracy but the other does not mention technocracy. It's not particularly satisfying, but it may be best to leave this open as well. Regarding Keynesianism and Neoliberalism, those are general frameworks or ideologies, independent of technocracy. They have been adoped by some technocrats. I reformulated the passage to clarify. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Relation to other political ideologies

Apologies for the delay; my personal life has been quite hectic lately.

No worries, this is a big topic so it can take some time. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Various academic discussions of technocracy – You can probably just lose the word "various" here.

  Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• In indirect democracy, they elect representatives who decide on the public's behalf – More of a curiosity than a critique, but any reason you chose to indirect democracy over, say, republicanism?

  Mainly because the comparison between direct and indirect democracy works better. Depending on how it is defined, republicanism is a broader view/ideology that includes ideas about civic virtue, the rule of law, the common good, and social equality. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Consent of the governed

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Common good

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is typically accompanied by depoliticization, with contentious issues being framed as neutral technical problems – Kind of awkward. Can I recommend something like This is typically accompanied by depoliticization, wherein contentious issues are framed as neutral technical problems?

  Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Soft suggestion for a comma after "instrumental rationality".

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• This is your third time linking monetary policy; I think once is enough. Suggest linking Public health.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Beneficial conditions for technocratic democracies include a broad consensus on the general goals of state policy and a willingness of individuals to accept short-term personal sacrifices for the sake of the long-term prosperity of the community – I think it would be prudent to include, or at least more blunt about, trust in expertise as well; technocrats struggle in low-trust societies.

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• between morally pure people and a corrupt, self-serving elite – I think it's better to say between the morally pure masses, since the emphasis in populism is the scale of "ordinary", not simply that the "ordinary" are morally pure.

  I added the part about the masses to the next sentence instead since the expression "morally pure masses" sounds odd to my ears. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think you would be wrong for linking Demagogue to personalistic leader.

  You are probably right. However, checking a few of our sources on populism, they don't use this term, so we would have to add a new source to support the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Again, delink "anti-" in anti-pluralistic

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• usually coupled with a technology-focused outlook – Technology or technocratic? Not sure these are reconciliation if the former.

  According to our source, its both. We cover the technocracy part in the previous clause about legitimacy based on expertize. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Divine command theory?

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Elitism contrasts with egalitarianism, which holds that all individuals should have equal political rights and opportunities. – I feel like I can see where this was headed, but there's no resolution from my perspective. In one sense, it's easy to see technocracy as elitist in the previous examples, but (as you address later) it has an egalitarian nature to it because (theoretically) anyone can become the expert. As it stands, this almost feels like a dangling participle, if that makes sense. It looks like you're about to make a point, but I don't feel like one's been made about technocracy.

  I think the problem is that egalitarianism can mean several things. You are right that in one sense, technocracy is egalitarian since, at least in principle, anyone could become part of the elite as an expert and make political decisions. I meant political egalitarianism, which is about equal distribution of political power, such as the principle "one person one vote", which is opposed to technocracy. I changed the sentence to focus on political egalitarianism. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Expertocracy is sometimes defined as a weaker form of technocracy that seeks to align decision-making processes to expert opinions without transferring power to technical elites. – This seems not dissimilar than what's been discussed already in this article, no?

  Correct. The point of this sentence is mainly to introduce the term "Expertocracy" alongside related terms, like meritocracy and epistocracy. But see also footnote [c] for a different definition. ~~

• Link Epistocracy
• Managerialism is also sometimes used to describe the sort of confluence or merger of state and capital like those outlined in The Servile State and (later) The Managerial Revolution. Worth discussing/disambiguating or no?

  Possible, but we would need a secondary source on that. The standard definitions in politics that I'm aware of focus more on the method of governing than on the structure of the state. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• justify their legitimacy by appealing to efficiency and expertise – Feels like there's a link to be had here towards

  It would be nice to have a link for this specific idea, but I'm not sure which one. The different parts already have links earlier in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Arguments

• Link Technological advancement (or perhaps Accelerating change?)

  I added the link to Accelerating change.

• better foundation for effective political decisions than ideology or popular sentiment – Well, better than strict ideology, right? Ideology is more or less about pointing human endeavor in a direction. In one (very real) sense, technocracy is an ideology, no?

  Correct: in the broadest sense, technocracy is an ideology. It becomes more complicated because the word ideology is also used in narrower sense, relative to which technocracy aspires to be non-ideological. In this sense, technocracy is a non-ideological ideology . I changed the expression to "ideological doctrine", which I hope gets the right message across. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Lobbying

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• openness to innovation – This feels like it needs more explanation. It seems like technocracy would be less innovative because it would need more evidence before any decision would be considered "technocratic".

  I clarified the point in relation to scientific and technological advancements. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• viewing it as a form of elitism that excludes large segments of the population from political participation. – Surely this is also a "for" argument as well, right? The idea that some people do not have the requisite knowledge or temperament to participate in the political process and should therefore be divorced from it is presumably also a benefit from one perspective, right?

  From the technocratic perspective, that's a valid point. However, it is not widely used as a pro-argument and not a standard way how technocrats advertize their position. Technocrats tend to talk more about competence and leave that part about a condition of that competence unsaid. Maybe it's because "Support us so we can exclude you" is not a good political slogan. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• reflect a diversity of opinions and preferences – I get what you're driving at here, but by no means is this contrary to technocratic thought. Diversity of thought is not necessarily un-technocratic.

  The statement is attributed to critics, so we can leave it open whether the argument is successful. There is a diversity in technocratic thought, for example, as competing scientific perspectives. However, there is even more diversity if you include unscientific opinions. However, more diversity is not necessarily better. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe a lob out of left field, but I think intrinsic worth of individuals should link to Personalism rather than just capturing the intrinsic worth link.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• This view asserts that there are diverse normative goals and that politics should consider different options and negotiate value trade-offs instead of adopting a narrow perspective that disregards alternative outlooks. – Genuinely uncertain that this contradicts technocracy in any meaningful way. That there are diverse normative goals, that deliberation should occur, and that certain choices require negotiating trade-offs seems rather the point of any serious political system, frankly.

  I reformulated the passage to focus more on the contrast between means and ends. The main point is that, according to this criticism, technocracy is just about the selection of means while politics should also negotiate the ends that are ultimately pursued. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link unexpected results to Externality?

  Maybe this is too narrow: externality need not be unexpected and the unexpected results could also negatively impact the agents rather than a third party. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Additionally, there are expert disagreements in which competing theories predict divergent outcomes without providing clear guidance for policymakers on which theory to follow. – Again, surely this is an obvious talking point for technocrats to get ahead of. Surely this is a part of the process, or at least someone has made mention of it?

  This problem concerns not only technocrats, but them specificially, because of their heavy reliance on expert knowledge. For most of the pro- and con-arguments, there are counterarguments and countercounterarguments, which is the case for most philosophical discussions and can get complex very quickly. For the sake of simplicity and concision, I tried to focus the discussion only on the main points without going into all the possible responses. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• critics hold that technocracy is a poorly defined notion – Granted, but that can denote a wide spectrum of approaches to governance depending on the context is, again, not necessarily a weakness, right? I'm reading "adaptable system" even if the context seems to imply "aimlessness".

  This is not a criticism of what technocrats do but of the concept or word technocracy: if it's not clear what it means then it's easy for people to talk past each other. I reformulated the sentence to clarify. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

History

• Maybe remove the dash in philosopher kings? The link doesn't have it but I don't really know.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• challenged traditional authorities – Presumably this is the ecclesiastical authorities, but probably worth glossing in any event since it's pretty vague.

  Also but not only. I added a short phrase. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Social engineering (political science)

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Grande écoles should probably be in {{lang}} templates, right? Also, lowercase?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• benevolent rulers – Maybe link Benevolent dictatorship?

  I'm not sure that dictatorship fits Bacon's views. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Public administration

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Abundance (economics)

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• labor processes – Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

  Clarified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Might be better to link criticized capitalism with Criticism of capitalism for Veblen.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• mobilization of the workforce – Link to Resource mobilization?

  Possibly too broad since the term is more closely associated with the mobilization of things rather than workers. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Can we get examples from Foucault and Habermas?

  I added an example for Foucault and provided additional information on Habermas. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link Dehumanization?

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Any reason you only linked correctional institutions, but not the other two?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• threat to democracy – Perhaps link Democratic backsliding or Illiberal democracy?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• but its influence declined in the following years – Which org is "its" referring to here?

  Not just the individual organizations but the movement in general. I reformulated to clarify. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Link anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Probably okay to link Latin America

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

See also

• Link Effective altruism? Seems like a kind of technocratic form of charity.

  Linked. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review to come. Thanks again for your patience. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review

@Phlsph7: Jeez, sorry about how long this took! Source review below for 10% rounded up (i.e., 10 footnotes sourced here). Using this diff and an RNG:

1. 1 – Y Checks out, but fwiw, as a reviewer at FAC, I'd prefer to see this broken up a bit so I don't have to check five sources for each bit of info.
2. 3 – Y Checks out.
3. 13 – Y Checks out.
4. 34 – Y Checks out.
5. 38 – Y Checks out.
6. 65 – Y Checks out. However, Liu, Lan & Zhu (2021) identifies Smyth as an American engineer contra subsection #Definition though. Looks like he was an "English-born American" or "English-American" engineer per the Visser source in [10]. I have no preference here with how you choose the wording.

   I changed the expression in the definition section to "English-born American". Phlsph7 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

7. 68 – Y Checks out.
8. 72 – Y Checks out.
9. 86 – Y Checks out, but you might be a little more explicit about what exactly Veblen saw as a conflict of interest. Also, Burris is accessible through the Internet Archive here, so I would link with the |url-access=registration in the citation template. Esmark is accessible through TWL here, so I would link with url-access=subscription. Also, Esmark appears to have been published through Bristol Uni Press, not Policy?

   I added an example for Veblen, I added the urls, and I changed the publisher parameter for Esmark. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

10. 90 – Y Neither of the sources I can access state the relative time frame of Singapore.

    This is supported by Tan 2016: By the 1970s and 1980s, like the other Asian ‘tiger economies’, Singapore’s economy featured impressively high growth rates and incomes. ... During this period, Singapore saw the rise of what Chan Heng Chee (1975) called an ‘administrative state’, a rationalized and highly technocratic mode of government, purified through the elimination of politics and democratic pressures from society and the market.

Just a few oddities that need a simple cleanup then this thing should pass with flying colors. Great work again and thanks for your monkish patience as I finished this thing up. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the in-depth review and for your help with the FA preparation! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Great work on this fascinating topic. Nihil obstat. Thanks again for your patience. If and when you bring this to FAC, please feel free to ping me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that technocracy is often viewed as a challenge to democracy because it favors scientific expertise over democratic participation?

• Source: Caramani, Daniele (2020). "Introduction". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.). The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-1-000-04360-0. technocracy is a form of power in which decisions over the allocation of values are made by experts or technical elite ... the source of legitimacy of power is superior knowledge and expertise (rather than, say, popular will) ... By offering an alternative vision of power, legitimacy and representation, technocracy criticizes the submission of policy to democratic self-rule and competitive elections.

• • ALT1: ... that technocracy is often seen as a threat to democracy because it grounds political legitimacy in expertise rather than popular representation? Source: Caramani, Daniele (2020). "Introduction". In Bertsou, Eri; Caramani, Daniele (eds.). The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy. Routledge. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-1-000-04360-0. technocracy is a form of power in which decisions over the allocation of values are made by experts or technical elite ... the source of legitimacy of power is superior knowledge and expertise (rather than, say, popular will) ... By offering an alternative vision of power, legitimacy and representation, technocracy criticizes the submission of policy to democratic self-rule and competitive elections.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Katie Phar
  • Comment: Personally, I would prefer ALT1. However, I put ALT0 first because it is more accessible to general readers. The QPQ was a double nomination of Katie Phar and Spokane free speech fight .

Improved to Good Article status by Phlsph7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 41 past nominations.

Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC).

• I'll review this. Thriley (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQs are done. The hooks are interesting and sourced. I don't see how ALT1 is less accessible to the general reader. You are welcome to strike the first hook if you like. All set. Thriley (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2026 (UTC)