Talk:Vox populi

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Band

there was a randomly inserted section on a band called "vox populi." it was a ridiculous description by either a fan or a band member, unsourced, biased, and written in an unprofessional style. i'm assuming this band is not article-worthy, but if it is it should be on its own page w\ a disambiguation page between the two. I've deleted the section. -bc88- 4-22-07

I also removed it, which means it was probably re-added recently. quinnallman, june 28th 2007

I agree with the above commentator. This is a very poorily written article, not worthy of true encyclopedia entry. I suggest detailing the historical significance of the idea, particularly the role of popular participation in the election of bishops and popes in the early middle ages and popular consent in the ascension of kings in the same period. What role does the vox populi play in modern politics? Reading more broadly in the field might help as well. For instance, George Boas's Vox Populi: Essays in the History of an idea is missing from the bibliography. Most university and larger public libraries should have this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renroma (talk • contribs) 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old Roman saying, picked up (and disputed) by Alcuin. Need to find reference. --Mballen (talk)

I definitely agree the article should be more like that than it is now. Man on the street currently redirects here, which is precisely backwards. The main sense has absolutely nothing to do with poorly done news segments, except as a rebuke to their editors. — LlywelynII 13:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References

I'm never a big fan of refences in modern culture anyway, but this list seems rather excessive. Most are tenuous and I don't feel that they add anything to the article. Rather than remove them all, I was hoping we could reach a concensus about how many to keep included and which ones. Certainly since the disambiguation page already takes you there do we relly need a mention of a Jericho episode?. As a suggestion the only one I feel that should stay is the mention to Alabama house of represntatives, that I found interesting, and it adds soemthing to the article, indicating the importance some institutions give to the concept.79.121.197.4 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually deleted all bar three of the references now. Please if anyone wants to put them back could they give justification first. That someone said the phrase in a movie or programme is not relevant or useful to this page, and could create a huge list if we really wanted. Also if it is the name of a book or album that doesn't even merit it's own page on Wikipedia it should not be here. (references to one cartoon with a play on the word from a comic strip that doesn't feature on Wikipedia is definitely out) 79.121.197.4 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, I am thinking about sorting them out chronogically. I think it makes more sense that way. Ddhelmet (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation (IPA)

I see this has changed. my "x" was clearly wrong should be ks, just a slip there, but since the pronunciation of Latin varies between speakers not only because of the two "classical" ways of being taught latin but also because it is essentially now an English word in its passing has become subject to usual inflections in dialects, I wonder if it would be better simply to delete the pronunciation entirely. My aim was to help those unfamiliar with the phrase (i.e. who would know a vox pop but not vox populi) but we might be leading them down the garden path here. Suggestions? SimonTrew (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think that the pronunciation should be as it is in Latin (I don't know IPA, so here goes my attempt at writing "Vox populi" phonetically): "Voks POH-puh-lih". It always bugs me when English speakers mispronounce Latin phrases (like habeas corpus, habeas data, and oh god vice versa)--190.17.113.65 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not to be prescriptive, but descriptive, and your "Latin" pronunciation isn't even Latin. The current pronunciation is how the phrase is pronounced, per MW and Random House. (The OED only has "vox".) Anyone who knows enough Latin to have a preferred conversion algorithm is of course free to use it on any word, but any attempt on our part at providing a more "authentic" pronunciation will run into opposition from those who have different preferences (i.e. "WOHKS POH-poo-lee"). kwami (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alcuin

Why are there two versions of Alcuin's quote listed? Did he discuss this two different times, or what?--A confused barbarian

Univocity

The article should maybe explain the notion of univocity in the context of trinitarian Christian theology. Since God is One, and since he is also Tri-Une, then he obviously must speak with one voice. For instance, it is common for authors to state that the Father is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer, the Son is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer and the Spirit is Creator/Saviour/Sanctifier/Healer. And since the Church (the People) is thought to reflect the mystery of the Holy Trinity, She too must speak with one voice. There are related concepts such as the Christian character of the soul, which some have described as having a trinitarian character, in order to be able to listen and respond to God. ADM (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't. That's entirely off topic. — LlywelynII 13:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth?

I love this about wikipedia. Take a look at that final sentence, it's hilarious! It's blatant original research, but it is very obvious that the person who wrote it has a real sense of humour about the subject, and the flow of that sentence is so amusing and expressive. Great stuff, anonymous. --Asdfg12345 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, the edit active at that time had the segment

...The later sketch-comedy show A Bit of Fry and Laurie featured "vox pops" in every episode, frequently playing on easily recognizable British stereotypes like the stupid policeman, yobbo, or middle-class housewife and satirizing the answers they would typically be expected to give on social or political issues. Humor was also often derived from the fact that only the answer and not the question was heard, leading to non-sequiturs like a straitlaced businessman saying, "Well I wouldn't suck it!" laughing nervously, and withdrawing, with no further explanation given.

which should obviously be restored (with citation) to the Man on the street article that should be split off from this one to handle the otherwise off-topic discussion of man on the street interviews that have absolutely nothing to do with vox populi vox dei itself, despite taking up most of the current article. — LlywelynII 13:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jstor reference is broken

"Page not found." —208.54.87.191 (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Allen not the first

Folklorist Alan Lomax was the first to conceive of interviewing the "man on the street" the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The interviews are preserved in the archives of the United States Library of Congress:

After the Day of Infamy: "Man-on-the-Street" Interviews Following the Attack on Pearl Harbor presents approximately twelve hours of opinions recorded in the days and months following the bombing of Pearl Harbor from more than two hundred individuals in cities and towns across the United States. On December 8, 1941 (the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor), Alan Lomax, then "assistant in charge" of the Archive of American Folk Song (now the Archive of Folk Culture, American Folklife Center), sent a telegram to fieldworkers in ten different localities across the United States, asking them to collect "man-on-the-street" reactions of ordinary Americans to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the United States. A second series of interviews, called "Dear Mr. President," was recorded in January and February 1942. Both collections are included in this presentation. They feature a wide diversity of opinion concerning the war and other social and political issues of the day, such as racial prejudice and labor disputes. The result is a portrait of everyday life in America as the United States entered World War II.

See https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/afcphhtml/afcphhome.html.

a) Remember to sign your posts.

b) Steve Allen not being the first doesn't make Lomax the first either.

c) All of that belongs at a separate article anyway. — LlywelynII 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machiavelli's citation/endorsement of Vox Populi

Although Machiavelli has become notorious for his book of advice to despots: The Prince, he personally preferred the republican system, as he explained in his Discourses on Livy: "I say, that a people is more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a Prince: And not without reason is the voice of the people like that of God".

Machiavelli insists that "public opinion is remarkably accurate in its prognostications…. With regard to its judgment, when two speakers of equal skill are heard advocating different alternatives, very rarely does one find the people failing to adopt the better view or incapable of appreciating the truth of what it hears" (Book I, chapter LVIII): Citing the formula vox populi, vox dei (Machiavelli 1965, 316), not only are the people competent to discern the best course of action when orators lay out competing plans, but they are in fact better qualified to make decisions, in Machiavelli's view, than are princes. For example, “the people can never be persuaded that it is good to appoint to an office a man of infamous or corrupt habits, whereas a prince may easily and in a vast variety of ways be persuaded to do this” (Machiavelli 1965, 316). Likewise, should the people depart from the law-abiding path, they may readily be convinced to restore order: “For an uncontrolled and tumultuous people can be spoken to by a good man and easily led back into a good way. But no one can speak to a wicked prince, and the only remedy is steel…. To cure the malady of the people words are enough” (Machiavelli 1965, 317). The contrast Machiavelli draws is stark. The republic governed by words and persuasion—in sum, ruled by public speech—is almost sure to realize the common good of its citizens; and even should it err, recourse is always open to further discourse. Non-republican regimes, because they exclude or limit discursive practices, ultimately rest upon coercive domination and can only be corrected by violent means. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/

Machiavelli believed the people possessed an "occult virtue" in discerning right from wrong: See: James Hankins, Editor, Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections (Ideas in Context) (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Elon's usage

I argue that the Elon response to his poll is a non-trivial usage due to the fact that the poll had over 134M views and the tweet in question, at this time, has 840.5K likes, therefore many more views, therefore has a significant reach and cultural impact, not to mention the numerous news articles and stories written and produced, therefore should be included on this wiki page. Nexxuz (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a trivial use of vox populi. The act of reinstating President Trump's account, however, was nontrivial so it bears inclusion in a far more concise form: a sentence with valid refs rather than a paragraph-long discussion. — LlywelynII 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split

The current article drones far too long on Man on the street interviews, whose WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name is (wait for it...) Man on the street interviews. Vox populi, on the other hand, has a history going back to the Roman mob with allusion to the Greek orators and demagogues... none of which this misfocused article touches on at the moment. The interview format needs to be split off from the entirely separate expression, which is what this namespace should focus on. This article shouldn't be part of WPJOURNALISM at all, let alone as the sole talk page link. — LlywelynII 13:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state the article is an uncouth conflation of two separate, unrelated topics - Man on the street interviews and the Latin proverb Vox populi, vox dei. Splitting the two is now long overdue.--Elnon (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]