This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alexis de Tocqueville article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 29, 2020. |
Hi,
I don't know a lot about Tocqueville but elsewhere I read quotations like "A 'debased' taste for equality, a love of snuffling in shit, and a hatred of those who seek to escape the gutter: these define the democrat". In case this is true, perhaps the article gives a somewhat too liberal view of him? (just wondering...) -Abaris — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.188.224.127 (
talk) 11:54, 17 January 2005 (UTC)
Some of these quotations seem a little too much like current day politics. I'm suspicious if they're actually in his works. If they are legitimate, could someone at least source them to whatever publication they're located in? I would like to read their relevant texts. Kade 05:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any sources for the Tocqueville effect? Please help us at the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Alexis_de_Tocqueville — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.127.171 ( talk) 00:21, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
Roanoke Times (July 1, 2005): "Roanoke College political science professor Bill Hill looked up 19th century politician John Taylor of Caroline County, political philosopher Alexis De Tocqueville and the Federalist Papers. 'In each case, the program responded with information that was accurate and pertinent, if brief," he wrote. "I thought the coverage of De Tocqueville, however, was too superficial.'
...
A feature of the Wikipedia that Hill likes are the links to original sources. It's pretty handy when reading about De Tocqueville to be able to click a link and read the man's own words. But Hill also noted a link that led to a 'very brief and shallow essay' about states' rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingtoit ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
add to quotes:
Could someone check if this quotation is legitimate and make it a part of the main article? -- dpol 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
The quotes should be included on the page, just because they are also on wikiquote doesn't mean they should be removed. It's alright if they appear in more than one place. -- Nyr14 July 7, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
Hi - the quotes on the main page are highly dubious. I fixed one that was definitely reversed from its actual meaning, but many of the rest of these look suspicious as well. Somebody should consider deleting all the quotations and re-posting only validated quotes with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.81.208 ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
A quote from the current Wikipedia entry on A. de Tocqueville related to his purported beliefs, ideas and actions vis-a-vis Blacks and American Indians:
Exactly where is this information found? I found de Tocqueville's expressed ideas on Blacks and American Indians to be both revelatory and appalling. He says slavery is bad but freeing Blacks is worse. In 1, 2 or 3 different chapters or sections of DEMOCRACY in AMERICA de Tocqueville states that American Indians could be counted on to disappear, and that Blacks were the biggest threat to America's white population. The title of one particularly pertinent chapter starts with "The Future of the Three Races" [then something like 'which populate the United States']. Later I will add more specifics. I welcome other interested scholars to add to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.204.252 ( talk) 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Cited admiringly as well is chapter 18 of Democracy of America, "The Present and Probably Future Condition of the Three Races that Inhabit the Territory of the United States". In spite of the inattention to this chapter and to those who cite it, views cited from this chapter include the following: Tocqueville stated that among the "widely differing families of men, the first which attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power and in enjoyment, is the white or European, the man pre-eminent; and in subordinate grades, the negro and the Indian ...Both of them occupy an inferior rank in the country they inhabit...." at the beginning of this chapter. To him those of European descent or those in the "Anglo-American Union" or the "Democratic Republic" of the United States were democratic with slavery in their midst while native Americans and those of African descent were those who were "undemocratic. He stated further that Native Americans would become extinct because they were too proud to assimilate. Reasons were also given to explain why persons of African descent had marks of slavery,and Europeans who had been enslaved did not have the marks of slavery. Persons of African descent according to Tocqueville were those who were inferior when it came to their facial and physical features, intelligence, marriages, their families, or husband- wife and parent-child relations in particular. Persons of African descent would never become become social or intellectual equals of those of European descent. Nor will they be accepted as such, despite all their efforts to assimilate. Removal of this population from America was thereby the best solution to problems of race relations in America for both Americans of African and European descent.
I'm coming late to this discussion, and I'm not familiar enough with Tocqueville's work (that's why I'm here!) but the quotations given and the comments thereupon seem to contradict each other. The quotes suggest Tocqueville was progressive in his views (but maybe the quote that ends "and if their miseries are different, they can accuse the same author for them" should be expanded to say who the author was (If God sent them the miseries, then that sounds pretty racist).
Perhaps this section could be expanded on a bit (or the quotes better explained) to show how comments that today sound fairly progressive (especially the third quote) are, in fact, not so. I don't know how to sign my entry, but my name is Lee. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.91.144.43 (
talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says that de Tocqueville "championed" both liberty and democracy. I find this a poor summary of his thesis; I see him critiquing it more than championing it. From the cover of my de Tocqueville book: "Tocqueville discusses the advantages and dangers of majority rule--which he thought could be as tyrannical as the rule of the aristocracy." Richard D. Heffner Italic textDemocracy in AmericaItalic text (New York: Penguin Group , 1984). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.212.100 ( talk) 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the purely subjective observations on "the best translation ..." -- Thorsen 13:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Where do I start? For one thing, Tocqueville's work here sounds like a bland encomium to American democracy. "He championed freedom and liberty" is both simplistic and strongly biased. The article seeks to convert him posthumously to American-style conservatism, progressivism, and classical liberalism; why stop there, when communitarians and others call him one of their own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.68.36 ( talk) 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Among other omissions, this entry doesn't describe Tocqueville's writings on the French Revolution; generally speaking it is very America-centric. (Can't anyone read the French article?) Also, "The Dark Face of Tocqueville" definitely introduces a biased POV.-- WadeMcR 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is very America-centric and has hints of bias. Why doesn't the section on Democracy in America contain anything about the Tyranny of the Majority (although he doesn't coin the phrase it is sometimes attributed to him,) or his critic of democracy. Instead it reads as a very pro-American piece, with nothing on L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Saiyanora ( talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"'We are sleeping on a volcano... A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.'(Speaking in the Chamber of Deputies, 1848, just prior to the outbreak of revolution in Europe)", could someone please define the context of De Toqueville's quote a little more specifically? There has never been a Europe-wide revolution, and my history isn't good enough to know the exact context in which he was speaking. Oktober 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this article says hardly anything about Tocqueville's writings on the French Revolution, which he considered his most important work. Neither does it adequately cover his more theoretical views on the state and social change.
Also: the stuff about his championing "freedom and liberty" has got to go.-- WadeMcR 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
They are back. The list is growing. It includes not one but two anti-Islamic quotes (apparently someone either thinks there is not enough Muslim-bashing on the web or that our readers are too dense to understand that Tocqueville was anti-Islamic on the basis of one unambiguous denunciation. Similarly, aphoristic "A weak government is threatened most when it begins to reform" is supplemented by a long quotation expressing the same sentiment. I'm inclined to get rid of all of them here, leaving it to WikiQuote; I'd have no problem with two or three, especially if they are either representative of his style and either epitomize the views for which he is most known or cover topics otherwise neglected in our article, but the current long list is a liability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
i've read de tocqueville's democracy in america several times over the years. i think this wikipedia article distorts what he has to say.
while it's true many of de tocqueville's opinions about minorities are appalling, and justly deserve condemnation, he is also still the most accurate observer of the general american character. his overall descriptions of the american people could have been written last week.
he is overall an admirer of america and its promise. he more often reminds american readers of what our best potential is, and when you read de tocqueville, as an american, you are moved to ask yourself: why don't we live up to all the things he perceived in us? how have we fallen into some of the snares he so astutely foresaw?
the wikipedia article captures none of this important information, which is what makes de tocqueville of enduring value to americans today, and one of the most important books on our democracy and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.224.5 ( talk) 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not intended to be opinionated and is not opinionated. It offers many pointed opinions, but they are all Tocqueville's opinions. If his central argument and observations, if the very essence of his storied text should not be offered, then nothing should really be written on the topic save some publishing information about the text. The way Tocqueville's observations are characterized is in complete agreement with countless leading scholars on the topic. And I suppose the information leading up to Tocqueville's argument could be shortened, but it speaks to the most crucial of contexts. Tocqueville, as his correspondence clearly proves, was joining a conversation which many thinkers had entered long before him. I understand the concern, but the place of More's Utopia is rather important to Tocqueville's work. The inherent argument in Utopia speaks directly to the consequences of communal property holding for political and social values. Scholarly consensus certainly concedes that. Now do not confuse that with any argument that More himself supported "communism." We first of all need to be very careful about using that word because using it would be anachronistic and would make limited sense. The article seems to merely suggest that Utopia advances an argument about property-holding and its relationship to virtue and political rule. We need only glance at the vast scholarship on the topic to see the consensus surrounding that. People can always claim that interpretations of texts are not neutral. But if the information offered in this article does not satisfy the need for neutrality, then the site should make no effort to condense or explain any aspect of any thinker's textual arguments anywhere. The amount of leading scholarship which would solidly support every claim made in this article is enormous. The arguments of all the thinkers as well as the analytical thread which necessarily ties them together is very easy to substantiate. We could offer countless references and have quotations proving rather convincingly every textual claim. Or we could refrain and embrace a rather succint (remember the text in question is both hundreds of pages long and centrally located in the modern Western political tradition) treatment of the subject in question. The purpose, as seems obvious, of a section on Democracy in America, would be to summarize Tocqueville's central argument. This article clearly seems to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.250.146 ( talk) 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The article looks a lot better now, I think--particularly with the bit about soft despotism and individualism. I've added a link to Benjamin Constant. It may be in the wrong place, though.
I was also thinking about adding a note about the Tocqueville revival among liberal French historians (e.g., François Furet, Marcel Gauchet), but I don't think I know enough about it. Does anyone else?-- WadeMcR 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Convoluted" would be a mild -- and essential -- interpretation. Virtually every leading scholar would completely agree with me on this. We could offer countless references to the repetition and poor grammar, but we simply will not be made to read through it all again. Merely one of many, many which could have been cited:
The alleged quote "Democracy and socialism..." does not occur in "Democracy in America" The word socialism does not occur.
- Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of Alexis de Tocqueville before hearing of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and when I eventually had a look at this page, it still wasn't clear to me (at all) who Alexis de Tocqueville was. The intro mumbles something about him writing two books in which he "explored the myriad and profound effects of the rising equality of social conditions on both the individual and the state in western societies", but it does not immediately explain which ideas he defended, or why these books are considered notorious. It would be of great help to a person not immediately familiar with the subject if such a summary were added to the article. Yoe 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All things considered, I think Wikipedia would be doing its readers a service by simply removing this article after the first short paragraph. Everything else in it is highly tendentious. It also sins greatly by omission, by not devoting a word of discussion to The Old Regime. The article is worse than useless - it actively misleads its readers as to what T was about.
This is Wikipedia at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.36.237 ( talk) 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can see there's a lot of discussion covering this article, much of it contentious. I don't want to enter into the arguments, but I've tried to clean the article up according to Wikipedia's standards. First, the biography had what appeared to be translations from French that were ore grammatically difficult than necessary. The big problem, however, is in the Democracy in America section, where it appears someone has pasted their own essay about Tocqueville above the original paragraph on the book. Much of it was accurate and relevant, but I had to remove a great deal that wasn't (discussing Plato, More, etc), and trim down to specific cases and examples. I haven't provided citations yet, but I think most of the information is well-supported and fairly apparent based on a reading of the book.
As to those above who say the article is American-centric ("sins greatly by omission, by not devoting a word of discussion to The Old Regime"): this is the English Wikipedia, and Democracy in America is a major work in Political Science, especially in the US. If you have information about his other works in France, go ahead and add it! Don't just complain, this is what Wikipedia is about. I hope that my edits don't inflame anyone here, I'm just trying to remove the cruft and generally clean the article. Jackson 09:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What does "colons" mean in the following sentence from the "Colonization" section: Years before the Crémieux decrees and the 1881 Indigenous Code that would separate European Jews colons, given French citizenship, and Muslims, Tocqueville advocated racial segregation in Algeria … .? This horribly run-on sentence is completely mangled. 72.73.219.126 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Prplxed
"Tocqueville, who did advocate racial segregation between Europeans and Arabs, judged otherwise the Berbers. In an August 22, 1837 proposal, cited by Jean-Louis Benoît, Tocqueville thus distinguished the Berbers from the Arabs. He considered that these last ones should have a self-government (a bit on the model of British indirect rule, thus going against the French assimiliationist stance)."
How could the editors of this section go on and on about the various differences Tocqueville noted between America and Europe, without mentioning religion, one of Tocqueville's primary explanations for the cause of these differences? Currently the article rambles about how Tocqueville strove to find out why the common man in America enjoyed high levels of dignity, possesses much "natural" power, and never deferred to so-called "elites"; why America never embraced socialism; and why America "was set apart by its peculiar democratic mores". The article, as it currently stands, implies that Tocqueville believed that these differences were ONLY due to economic factors (property ownership, vast available land, and industriousness). While Tocqueville may have attributed the differences between America and Europe to some economic factors, he often stated that the differences were also heavily due to the religious and spiritual practices prevalent among Americans. I can quickly cite a couple examples of this, stated by Tocqueville himself:
Alas, the bias in Wikipedia may never end! Gaytan 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you pronunciate his surname? -- Harac 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be useful if the article covered Tocqueville's travels throughout the U.S. and Canada. I don't have the time to research and write this, but I think that would be a helpful expansion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article states he was part of the liberal tradition. Which liberal tradition? Classic liberalism, like Adam Smith, or social liberalism, like Emile Durkheim? Signature brendel 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose to add a few pieces of information on Tocqueville, which results from new research in 2003-2007 on Chopin and Jenny Lind's newly discovered romance in 1848-1849:
Under what subheadings could item 2 best be put? Jean de Beaumont ( talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is way too long, considering that this the de Tocqueville article not the Democracy in America page. There should be a section on the book, but not a summary of the book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnotpj ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph is nonsensical: "He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's December 2, 1851 coup, and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution, Volume I o a law degree, Alexis de Tocqueville was named auditor-magistrate at the court of Versailles."
Two unrelated chunks of text have been stuck together, each broken off in mid-sentence. It also leaps back in time nearly 30 years with this transition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 ( talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
tocqueville did not use a word "civique" in his work. i replaced it with "political". his work is also about political society not a civil society, hewever he uses the second term also. i have added "political society" in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would this link be worthy of inclusion in the external links?
I'll just put this link ("Unprophetic Tocqueville") in for now. If people disagree that it should be included, feel free to remove it and/or comment. Hellenic9 ( talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
helping hands needed! AfD was put on political society article. The idea seems to be invented by Tocqueville. He pay great importance to it in Democracy in America, as well as to 'political association' concept (there is different chapter on it). -- discourseur 10:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some way of including this comparatively recent work on the de Tocqueville page. From POV, it brings further clarity to the many of the themes and issues that de Tocqueville addresses in DiA, and is immeasurably pertinent to anyone wishing to study this fine scholar.
If we forget any such statements, it is surely deserving of inclusion as the author makes expicit reference to how he is emulating de Tocqueville. The conclusions that can be drawn from American Vertigo may be markedly different to those in DiA, and may also be POV, however it would be an error to not include some synposis and details about this work. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cvmuk (
talk •
contribs) 11:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems somewhat suspect, ie. biased, in that it is very focussed on attempting to paint the man as a hypocrite, disproportionately favouring exposition regarding his personal life over the reason the page exists in the first place, namely his works, without any attempt to refer to his or scholars' interpretations of why he would have temporarily supported certain regimes, and opposed the illiberal nature of the "reformers," towards the ends of his life. 99.232.109.179 ( talk) 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I took out the quote about "bribing the public with the public's money"; I searched in several online editions of "Democracy in America" and didn't find the quote. I also failed to find it in several other works of Tocqueville; I'm not certain it is an authentic quote, although it is online in numerous places attributed to him. Brianyoumans ( talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to present this kind of reference here or not, but Tocqueville was also quoted in "Deus Ex: Invisible War" videogame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.251.211.17 ( talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This article takes a windy path in order to avoid Tocqueville's love for liberty. It is absolutely ridiculous that this article portrays the man as some sort of apologist to those that support liberty. The summary of Democracy in America totally misses the point. You have to be nuts if that is what you took away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.132.126 ( talk) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do people always point to how much he loved "liberty" and religion (Christianity only), but they totally ignore what a totally racist bastard he was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The section on Democracy in America is full of opinions, lacks citations, and is often off topic. I started adding "citation needed" to the sources. I stopped, as often times, it was not even a matter of lack of citation but flat out opinions. I do not feel like my involvement in the wiki community warrants me removing large chunks of someone else's work. If someone with more experience with the process should look at this section -- tout suite. 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardalan.parsa ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Tocqueville's professed religion was Roman Catholicism.[11] He saw religion as being compatible with both equality and individualism, and felt that religion would be strongest when separated from politics."
Um, why is this in the section called "Death"? Is the contention that Tocqueville's Catholicism killed him? Look, this is an interesting observation, but it certainly does not belong in this section! GeneCallahan ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
What was Alexis de Tocqueville's full name? According to Lexico (formely Oxford Dictionaries) it was Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clérel de Tocqueville. I understand that "de Tocqueville" is toponymic — the thing I'm confused about is "Maurice". Also, are there any hyphens in his name? — CaiusSPQR ( talk) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And alas, I do not have the expertise to fix it, but having just read it, I can say for sure based on reading its self-contradicting content and then consequently reading the Talk page, that it (the article) is a biased mess twisted in line with someone's, or several someones', ill-reasoned beliefs, devoid of logic, which seemingly someone hopes to validate by quoting de Tocqueville in some permutation of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
When I opened up the talk to see if anybody else was thinking the same I saw that similar contentions have been going on for over fifteen years.
What on Earth is going on with this article? 80.71.142.35 ( talk) 20:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The articles says: "Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism." But instead of citing what Tocqueville said, there are citations of some James Wood and Josua Kaplan what according to them Tocqueville said. Horrible. Dubiel ( talk) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I will remove the last sentence of the introduction, since that characterization is extremely misleading. "Left" in Tocqueville's age and context usually meant "Classical Liberal," which in modern times is considered Rightist. And even as a classical liberal Tocqueville was very conservative; he was a firm believer in Christianity and meritocracy, as well as a strong critic of collectivism and state power—all of which are classical Right-wing stances. This is also why no actual leftists (Marxists, Anarchists etc.) read him or quote him. Tocqueville is a Rightist by all modern standards.
Here are some authoritative sources that identify Tocqueville as a Rightist:
In the article, the lists of philosophers Tocqueville influenced, and was influenced by, are also dominated by Right-wingers. Out of 46 names that are only a few distinct Leftists; the rest are Rightists or tilt towards the Right. There is not a shadow of a doubt to which side of the political spectrum Tocqueville belongs. Trakking ( talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alexis de Tocqueville article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 29, 2020. |
|
Hi,
I don't know a lot about Tocqueville but elsewhere I read quotations like "A 'debased' taste for equality, a love of snuffling in shit, and a hatred of those who seek to escape the gutter: these define the democrat". In case this is true, perhaps the article gives a somewhat too liberal view of him? (just wondering...) -Abaris — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.188.224.127 (
talk) 11:54, 17 January 2005 (UTC)
Some of these quotations seem a little too much like current day politics. I'm suspicious if they're actually in his works. If they are legitimate, could someone at least source them to whatever publication they're located in? I would like to read their relevant texts. Kade 05:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any sources for the Tocqueville effect? Please help us at the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Alexis_de_Tocqueville — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.127.171 ( talk) 00:21, 19 June 2005 (UTC)
Roanoke Times (July 1, 2005): "Roanoke College political science professor Bill Hill looked up 19th century politician John Taylor of Caroline County, political philosopher Alexis De Tocqueville and the Federalist Papers. 'In each case, the program responded with information that was accurate and pertinent, if brief," he wrote. "I thought the coverage of De Tocqueville, however, was too superficial.'
...
A feature of the Wikipedia that Hill likes are the links to original sources. It's pretty handy when reading about De Tocqueville to be able to click a link and read the man's own words. But Hill also noted a link that led to a 'very brief and shallow essay' about states' rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingtoit ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
add to quotes:
Could someone check if this quotation is legitimate and make it a part of the main article? -- dpol 4 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
The quotes should be included on the page, just because they are also on wikiquote doesn't mean they should be removed. It's alright if they appear in more than one place. -- Nyr14 July 7, 2005 03:27 (UTC)
Hi - the quotes on the main page are highly dubious. I fixed one that was definitely reversed from its actual meaning, but many of the rest of these look suspicious as well. Somebody should consider deleting all the quotations and re-posting only validated quotes with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.81.208 ( talk) 20:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
A quote from the current Wikipedia entry on A. de Tocqueville related to his purported beliefs, ideas and actions vis-a-vis Blacks and American Indians:
Exactly where is this information found? I found de Tocqueville's expressed ideas on Blacks and American Indians to be both revelatory and appalling. He says slavery is bad but freeing Blacks is worse. In 1, 2 or 3 different chapters or sections of DEMOCRACY in AMERICA de Tocqueville states that American Indians could be counted on to disappear, and that Blacks were the biggest threat to America's white population. The title of one particularly pertinent chapter starts with "The Future of the Three Races" [then something like 'which populate the United States']. Later I will add more specifics. I welcome other interested scholars to add to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.204.252 ( talk) 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Cited admiringly as well is chapter 18 of Democracy of America, "The Present and Probably Future Condition of the Three Races that Inhabit the Territory of the United States". In spite of the inattention to this chapter and to those who cite it, views cited from this chapter include the following: Tocqueville stated that among the "widely differing families of men, the first which attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, in power and in enjoyment, is the white or European, the man pre-eminent; and in subordinate grades, the negro and the Indian ...Both of them occupy an inferior rank in the country they inhabit...." at the beginning of this chapter. To him those of European descent or those in the "Anglo-American Union" or the "Democratic Republic" of the United States were democratic with slavery in their midst while native Americans and those of African descent were those who were "undemocratic. He stated further that Native Americans would become extinct because they were too proud to assimilate. Reasons were also given to explain why persons of African descent had marks of slavery,and Europeans who had been enslaved did not have the marks of slavery. Persons of African descent according to Tocqueville were those who were inferior when it came to their facial and physical features, intelligence, marriages, their families, or husband- wife and parent-child relations in particular. Persons of African descent would never become become social or intellectual equals of those of European descent. Nor will they be accepted as such, despite all their efforts to assimilate. Removal of this population from America was thereby the best solution to problems of race relations in America for both Americans of African and European descent.
I'm coming late to this discussion, and I'm not familiar enough with Tocqueville's work (that's why I'm here!) but the quotations given and the comments thereupon seem to contradict each other. The quotes suggest Tocqueville was progressive in his views (but maybe the quote that ends "and if their miseries are different, they can accuse the same author for them" should be expanded to say who the author was (If God sent them the miseries, then that sounds pretty racist).
Perhaps this section could be expanded on a bit (or the quotes better explained) to show how comments that today sound fairly progressive (especially the third quote) are, in fact, not so. I don't know how to sign my entry, but my name is Lee. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.91.144.43 (
talk) 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The article says that de Tocqueville "championed" both liberty and democracy. I find this a poor summary of his thesis; I see him critiquing it more than championing it. From the cover of my de Tocqueville book: "Tocqueville discusses the advantages and dangers of majority rule--which he thought could be as tyrannical as the rule of the aristocracy." Richard D. Heffner Italic textDemocracy in AmericaItalic text (New York: Penguin Group , 1984). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.212.100 ( talk) 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the purely subjective observations on "the best translation ..." -- Thorsen 13:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Where do I start? For one thing, Tocqueville's work here sounds like a bland encomium to American democracy. "He championed freedom and liberty" is both simplistic and strongly biased. The article seeks to convert him posthumously to American-style conservatism, progressivism, and classical liberalism; why stop there, when communitarians and others call him one of their own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.68.36 ( talk) 05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Among other omissions, this entry doesn't describe Tocqueville's writings on the French Revolution; generally speaking it is very America-centric. (Can't anyone read the French article?) Also, "The Dark Face of Tocqueville" definitely introduces a biased POV.-- WadeMcR 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is very America-centric and has hints of bias. Why doesn't the section on Democracy in America contain anything about the Tyranny of the Majority (although he doesn't coin the phrase it is sometimes attributed to him,) or his critic of democracy. Instead it reads as a very pro-American piece, with nothing on L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution. Saiyanora ( talk) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"'We are sleeping on a volcano... A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.'(Speaking in the Chamber of Deputies, 1848, just prior to the outbreak of revolution in Europe)", could someone please define the context of De Toqueville's quote a little more specifically? There has never been a Europe-wide revolution, and my history isn't good enough to know the exact context in which he was speaking. Oktober 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this article says hardly anything about Tocqueville's writings on the French Revolution, which he considered his most important work. Neither does it adequately cover his more theoretical views on the state and social change.
Also: the stuff about his championing "freedom and liberty" has got to go.-- WadeMcR 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
They are back. The list is growing. It includes not one but two anti-Islamic quotes (apparently someone either thinks there is not enough Muslim-bashing on the web or that our readers are too dense to understand that Tocqueville was anti-Islamic on the basis of one unambiguous denunciation. Similarly, aphoristic "A weak government is threatened most when it begins to reform" is supplemented by a long quotation expressing the same sentiment. I'm inclined to get rid of all of them here, leaving it to WikiQuote; I'd have no problem with two or three, especially if they are either representative of his style and either epitomize the views for which he is most known or cover topics otherwise neglected in our article, but the current long list is a liability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
i've read de tocqueville's democracy in america several times over the years. i think this wikipedia article distorts what he has to say.
while it's true many of de tocqueville's opinions about minorities are appalling, and justly deserve condemnation, he is also still the most accurate observer of the general american character. his overall descriptions of the american people could have been written last week.
he is overall an admirer of america and its promise. he more often reminds american readers of what our best potential is, and when you read de tocqueville, as an american, you are moved to ask yourself: why don't we live up to all the things he perceived in us? how have we fallen into some of the snares he so astutely foresaw?
the wikipedia article captures none of this important information, which is what makes de tocqueville of enduring value to americans today, and one of the most important books on our democracy and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.224.5 ( talk) 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not intended to be opinionated and is not opinionated. It offers many pointed opinions, but they are all Tocqueville's opinions. If his central argument and observations, if the very essence of his storied text should not be offered, then nothing should really be written on the topic save some publishing information about the text. The way Tocqueville's observations are characterized is in complete agreement with countless leading scholars on the topic. And I suppose the information leading up to Tocqueville's argument could be shortened, but it speaks to the most crucial of contexts. Tocqueville, as his correspondence clearly proves, was joining a conversation which many thinkers had entered long before him. I understand the concern, but the place of More's Utopia is rather important to Tocqueville's work. The inherent argument in Utopia speaks directly to the consequences of communal property holding for political and social values. Scholarly consensus certainly concedes that. Now do not confuse that with any argument that More himself supported "communism." We first of all need to be very careful about using that word because using it would be anachronistic and would make limited sense. The article seems to merely suggest that Utopia advances an argument about property-holding and its relationship to virtue and political rule. We need only glance at the vast scholarship on the topic to see the consensus surrounding that. People can always claim that interpretations of texts are not neutral. But if the information offered in this article does not satisfy the need for neutrality, then the site should make no effort to condense or explain any aspect of any thinker's textual arguments anywhere. The amount of leading scholarship which would solidly support every claim made in this article is enormous. The arguments of all the thinkers as well as the analytical thread which necessarily ties them together is very easy to substantiate. We could offer countless references and have quotations proving rather convincingly every textual claim. Or we could refrain and embrace a rather succint (remember the text in question is both hundreds of pages long and centrally located in the modern Western political tradition) treatment of the subject in question. The purpose, as seems obvious, of a section on Democracy in America, would be to summarize Tocqueville's central argument. This article clearly seems to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.250.146 ( talk) 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The article looks a lot better now, I think--particularly with the bit about soft despotism and individualism. I've added a link to Benjamin Constant. It may be in the wrong place, though.
I was also thinking about adding a note about the Tocqueville revival among liberal French historians (e.g., François Furet, Marcel Gauchet), but I don't think I know enough about it. Does anyone else?-- WadeMcR 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
"Convoluted" would be a mild -- and essential -- interpretation. Virtually every leading scholar would completely agree with me on this. We could offer countless references to the repetition and poor grammar, but we simply will not be made to read through it all again. Merely one of many, many which could have been cited:
The alleged quote "Democracy and socialism..." does not occur in "Democracy in America" The word socialism does not occur.
- Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of Alexis de Tocqueville before hearing of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, and when I eventually had a look at this page, it still wasn't clear to me (at all) who Alexis de Tocqueville was. The intro mumbles something about him writing two books in which he "explored the myriad and profound effects of the rising equality of social conditions on both the individual and the state in western societies", but it does not immediately explain which ideas he defended, or why these books are considered notorious. It would be of great help to a person not immediately familiar with the subject if such a summary were added to the article. Yoe 14:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All things considered, I think Wikipedia would be doing its readers a service by simply removing this article after the first short paragraph. Everything else in it is highly tendentious. It also sins greatly by omission, by not devoting a word of discussion to The Old Regime. The article is worse than useless - it actively misleads its readers as to what T was about.
This is Wikipedia at its worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.36.237 ( talk) 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can see there's a lot of discussion covering this article, much of it contentious. I don't want to enter into the arguments, but I've tried to clean the article up according to Wikipedia's standards. First, the biography had what appeared to be translations from French that were ore grammatically difficult than necessary. The big problem, however, is in the Democracy in America section, where it appears someone has pasted their own essay about Tocqueville above the original paragraph on the book. Much of it was accurate and relevant, but I had to remove a great deal that wasn't (discussing Plato, More, etc), and trim down to specific cases and examples. I haven't provided citations yet, but I think most of the information is well-supported and fairly apparent based on a reading of the book.
As to those above who say the article is American-centric ("sins greatly by omission, by not devoting a word of discussion to The Old Regime"): this is the English Wikipedia, and Democracy in America is a major work in Political Science, especially in the US. If you have information about his other works in France, go ahead and add it! Don't just complain, this is what Wikipedia is about. I hope that my edits don't inflame anyone here, I'm just trying to remove the cruft and generally clean the article. Jackson 09:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What does "colons" mean in the following sentence from the "Colonization" section: Years before the Crémieux decrees and the 1881 Indigenous Code that would separate European Jews colons, given French citizenship, and Muslims, Tocqueville advocated racial segregation in Algeria … .? This horribly run-on sentence is completely mangled. 72.73.219.126 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Prplxed
"Tocqueville, who did advocate racial segregation between Europeans and Arabs, judged otherwise the Berbers. In an August 22, 1837 proposal, cited by Jean-Louis Benoît, Tocqueville thus distinguished the Berbers from the Arabs. He considered that these last ones should have a self-government (a bit on the model of British indirect rule, thus going against the French assimiliationist stance)."
How could the editors of this section go on and on about the various differences Tocqueville noted between America and Europe, without mentioning religion, one of Tocqueville's primary explanations for the cause of these differences? Currently the article rambles about how Tocqueville strove to find out why the common man in America enjoyed high levels of dignity, possesses much "natural" power, and never deferred to so-called "elites"; why America never embraced socialism; and why America "was set apart by its peculiar democratic mores". The article, as it currently stands, implies that Tocqueville believed that these differences were ONLY due to economic factors (property ownership, vast available land, and industriousness). While Tocqueville may have attributed the differences between America and Europe to some economic factors, he often stated that the differences were also heavily due to the religious and spiritual practices prevalent among Americans. I can quickly cite a couple examples of this, stated by Tocqueville himself:
Alas, the bias in Wikipedia may never end! Gaytan 00:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you pronunciate his surname? -- Harac 12:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be useful if the article covered Tocqueville's travels throughout the U.S. and Canada. I don't have the time to research and write this, but I think that would be a helpful expansion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article states he was part of the liberal tradition. Which liberal tradition? Classic liberalism, like Adam Smith, or social liberalism, like Emile Durkheim? Signature brendel 06:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I propose to add a few pieces of information on Tocqueville, which results from new research in 2003-2007 on Chopin and Jenny Lind's newly discovered romance in 1848-1849:
Under what subheadings could item 2 best be put? Jean de Beaumont ( talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This section is way too long, considering that this the de Tocqueville article not the Democracy in America page. There should be a section on the book, but not a summary of the book itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnotpj ( talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph is nonsensical: "He retired from political life after Louis Napoléon Bonaparte's December 2, 1851 coup, and thereafter began work on The Old Regime and the Revolution, Volume I o a law degree, Alexis de Tocqueville was named auditor-magistrate at the court of Versailles."
Two unrelated chunks of text have been stuck together, each broken off in mid-sentence. It also leaps back in time nearly 30 years with this transition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 ( talk) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
tocqueville did not use a word "civique" in his work. i replaced it with "political". his work is also about political society not a civil society, hewever he uses the second term also. i have added "political society" in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Would this link be worthy of inclusion in the external links?
I'll just put this link ("Unprophetic Tocqueville") in for now. If people disagree that it should be included, feel free to remove it and/or comment. Hellenic9 ( talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
helping hands needed! AfD was put on political society article. The idea seems to be invented by Tocqueville. He pay great importance to it in Democracy in America, as well as to 'political association' concept (there is different chapter on it). -- discourseur 10:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there is some way of including this comparatively recent work on the de Tocqueville page. From POV, it brings further clarity to the many of the themes and issues that de Tocqueville addresses in DiA, and is immeasurably pertinent to anyone wishing to study this fine scholar.
If we forget any such statements, it is surely deserving of inclusion as the author makes expicit reference to how he is emulating de Tocqueville. The conclusions that can be drawn from American Vertigo may be markedly different to those in DiA, and may also be POV, however it would be an error to not include some synposis and details about this work. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cvmuk (
talk •
contribs) 11:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This article seems somewhat suspect, ie. biased, in that it is very focussed on attempting to paint the man as a hypocrite, disproportionately favouring exposition regarding his personal life over the reason the page exists in the first place, namely his works, without any attempt to refer to his or scholars' interpretations of why he would have temporarily supported certain regimes, and opposed the illiberal nature of the "reformers," towards the ends of his life. 99.232.109.179 ( talk) 05:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I took out the quote about "bribing the public with the public's money"; I searched in several online editions of "Democracy in America" and didn't find the quote. I also failed to find it in several other works of Tocqueville; I'm not certain it is an authentic quote, although it is online in numerous places attributed to him. Brianyoumans ( talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to present this kind of reference here or not, but Tocqueville was also quoted in "Deus Ex: Invisible War" videogame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.251.211.17 ( talk) 21:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This article takes a windy path in order to avoid Tocqueville's love for liberty. It is absolutely ridiculous that this article portrays the man as some sort of apologist to those that support liberty. The summary of Democracy in America totally misses the point. You have to be nuts if that is what you took away from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.132.126 ( talk) 13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do people always point to how much he loved "liberty" and religion (Christianity only), but they totally ignore what a totally racist bastard he was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 ( talk) 09:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The section on Democracy in America is full of opinions, lacks citations, and is often off topic. I started adding "citation needed" to the sources. I stopped, as often times, it was not even a matter of lack of citation but flat out opinions. I do not feel like my involvement in the wiki community warrants me removing large chunks of someone else's work. If someone with more experience with the process should look at this section -- tout suite. 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardalan.parsa ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
"Tocqueville's professed religion was Roman Catholicism.[11] He saw religion as being compatible with both equality and individualism, and felt that religion would be strongest when separated from politics."
Um, why is this in the section called "Death"? Is the contention that Tocqueville's Catholicism killed him? Look, this is an interesting observation, but it certainly does not belong in this section! GeneCallahan ( talk) 06:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alexis de Tocqueville. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
What was Alexis de Tocqueville's full name? According to Lexico (formely Oxford Dictionaries) it was Alexis Charles Henri Maurice Clérel de Tocqueville. I understand that "de Tocqueville" is toponymic — the thing I'm confused about is "Maurice". Also, are there any hyphens in his name? — CaiusSPQR ( talk) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And alas, I do not have the expertise to fix it, but having just read it, I can say for sure based on reading its self-contradicting content and then consequently reading the Talk page, that it (the article) is a biased mess twisted in line with someone's, or several someones', ill-reasoned beliefs, devoid of logic, which seemingly someone hopes to validate by quoting de Tocqueville in some permutation of the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
When I opened up the talk to see if anybody else was thinking the same I saw that similar contentions have been going on for over fifteen years.
What on Earth is going on with this article? 80.71.142.35 ( talk) 20:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The articles says: "Tocqueville warned that modern democracy may be adept at inventing new forms of tyranny because radical equality could lead to the materialism of an expanding bourgeoisie and to the selfishness of individualism." But instead of citing what Tocqueville said, there are citations of some James Wood and Josua Kaplan what according to them Tocqueville said. Horrible. Dubiel ( talk) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I will remove the last sentence of the introduction, since that characterization is extremely misleading. "Left" in Tocqueville's age and context usually meant "Classical Liberal," which in modern times is considered Rightist. And even as a classical liberal Tocqueville was very conservative; he was a firm believer in Christianity and meritocracy, as well as a strong critic of collectivism and state power—all of which are classical Right-wing stances. This is also why no actual leftists (Marxists, Anarchists etc.) read him or quote him. Tocqueville is a Rightist by all modern standards.
Here are some authoritative sources that identify Tocqueville as a Rightist:
In the article, the lists of philosophers Tocqueville influenced, and was influenced by, are also dominated by Right-wingers. Out of 46 names that are only a few distinct Leftists; the rest are Rightists or tilt towards the Right. There is not a shadow of a doubt to which side of the political spectrum Tocqueville belongs. Trakking ( talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)