Talk:Benevolent dictatorship

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Bukele?

He fits the definition. 2A02:3030:81F:DB1D:1:0:BE66:EA33 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second Nayib Bukele as a benevolent dictator. Bluepanther512 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i also support this. here is a source to add himhttps://www.latamkcl.co.uk/elcortao/tweeting-democracy-away-el-salvadors-benevolent-dictator Cannolorosa (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding the relevant material to the article directly (per WP:BRD). If someone objects (it's possible nobody will), they will revert, and then we can discuss. Banedon (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Shah of Iran

I think Reza Shah of Iran is a modern example of a benevolent dictator because he's the one who united Iran with his power and transformed it into a prosperous, modernized nation. He deserved to be in the page. Besides, you may think he's a constitutional monarch, but he's more of an absolute monarch just like Emperor Meiji of Japan and Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. 115.84.88.250 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Pilsudski

1. Established Polish sovereignty after centuries of division and foreign rule. 2. Defended the new state during its infancy against the Soviet invasion. 3. Left power peacefully, only executing a mostly bloodless coup in the midst of economic collapse. 4. Maintained low tax burden, allowing the development of a market economy. Welcomed significant degree of foreign investment. 5. Generally used a minimal degree of coercion to achieve his political goals. 6. Defended an inclusive vision of Polish national identity a federation of ethnicities within one state. Protected the interests and rights of the large Jewish population during an era in which anti-Semitism was rife in the region.

Naturally, dictatorship is never an ideal system of governance. But the evidence seems plain that Pilsudski legitimately advanced the interests of his nation during an era in which no preferable alternative existed. Certainly, the Second Republic was stronger with him in the helm than after his passing. 2601:58C:100:8690:5929:C22E:9705:736C (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of examples dispute (June 2024)

This is about this edit. I don't believe LokiTheLiar and I are going to agree - we disagreed enough to have the RfC above, and then disagree even on the meaning of the RfC close. The editor who closed to RfC is inactive now, so I'm proposing to move this to WP:DRN. Does anyone other than me & LokiTheLiar have any thoughts on this? If not, I'll file to DRN in a few days' time. Banedon (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with WP:DRN. Loki (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done [1]. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a few articles about the concept of dictatorship, and this article has been on the back of my mind for expansion, but I didn't realize that this back and forth was still causing problems here. It never would have gotten to this point if anyone had sat down and written the article properly:

Find sources that give significant coverage to the concept of benevolent dictatorship or major aspects thereof.
Summarize those sources.
The end.

If the sources cite specific examples, describe those examples in context. If the sources do not cite a given dictator as an example, don't decide on your own that you know better. Definitely do not go looking for sources about specific figures that happen to describe them as benevolent dictators; that's cherrypicking your examples, which is an NPOV issue. I recently wrote an essay specifically about this sort of issue if someone is interested in solving the problem: User:Thebiguglyalien/The source, the whole source, and nothing but the source. If not, I'll probably do it myself some day. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this in my !vote below, but I'll reiterate it here: That section is of almost shockingly low quality. Most of the text is WP:SYNTH using sources that don't even mention the concept of a benevolent dictator, strung together by an editor trying to argue the point themselves; obviously that will never be acceptable. I don't think a DRN is necessary; WP:SYNTH is a pretty fundamental policy, so there's no real room to negotiate on that, and this dispute was settled already anyway. My advice is to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other articles, but if you must continue to try and argue for inclusion in some form, at least don't use that version to argue that WP:SYNTH-riddled mess to argue it. --Aquillion (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page contain examples? #2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a no consensus as to whether examples of benevolent dictators should be included in this article. Those in favor of inclusion argued that examples would be helpful to readers. Those against contended that (1) the specific examples provided rely on SYNTH; (2) stating examples in wikivoice would violate NPOV; (3) that there is no limiting criterion, which could lead to coatracking; and (4) even requiring that examples be attributed would run into DUE and BALANCE issues. Those in favor responded that attribution would obviate NPOV issues and that weight and balance issues could be fixed by adding opposing points of view. Although those against far outnumbered those in favor, the response to the against points were strong arguments rooted in P&Gs. However, those responses did not adequately address the coatracking or neutrality concerns; some editors were still of the view that even with attribution, the examples would be controversial or attract fringe sources. As both sides have advanced arguments consistent with P&Gs, and there's been no suggestion of how to weigh between the opposing arguments, I find no consensus. As for next steps, there was a late suggestion that historical examples described by reliable historians as "benevolent dictators" might be appropriate; further discussion on that specific proposal, rather than hashing this issue out yet a third time, might be fruitful. There was also a late suggestion regarding the use of the title in tech, which doesn't seem particularly controversial to me and seems to be outside the scope of this RfC. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article contain examples or not? 02:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, because it's almost impossible for examples to satisfy WP:NPOV even with attribution. The diff you listed makes that clear, because many of the examples have significant contradictory sourcing (e.g. Thomas Sankara has a line in the lead of his article about the government's practice of extrajudicial executions and arbitrary detentions of political opponents). Loki (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes based on LokiTheLiar's 'no' above, I hazard the idea is that he/she believes there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator, hence listing any benevolent dictators violates NPOV. Since sources say there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator, that reasoning is invalid, and we are left with keeping the text. Banedon (talk) 06:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear, some of these "no" votes simply read like the person is unable to imagine a benevolent dictator, hence we should remove the text. Banedon (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i still belive that there should be Examples listed or atleast they be consiterd aplicant examples or 'Considered Candidates' as it allows people to broaden their learning of figures and scretinize them to thier own conclusion. You could preffice it with a warning like saying that "these figures Could be considered Examples of Benevolent Dictators considered to be by their people and a majority of others that their actions could fall into the Category of Benevolent dictator." Or somthing but i think putting in examples of aleast people who could be considered benevolent dictators could be good for spreading knowledge. Ghostof 07 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to just make it a list of leaders sometimes described as benevolent dictators? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could make the changes you think are appropriate and add the option to the RfC. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. As I said in the section above this one (Inclusion of examples dispute (June 2024)), it's inappropriate to start by deciding what to put in the article and then finding sources to put it in. This is trying to write the article WP:BACKWARD, and—to be blunt—this RfC and the broader dispute indicate that editors with more content-writing experience should be looking at this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Yes. Responding to request for 3-O. If a source specifically on the topic benevolent dictators exists (and which includes examples), then it should be used. Editing the article WP:BACKWARDs by finding sources on specific figures first is going to lead to contentious edits (as I'd wager near every dictator is known as a benevolent one by some group). The section's title should also be changed to 'Possible benevolent dictators', or something akin to that. The section should be written in summary style, with brief mention of some of the objections to the figure being known as a benevolent dictator (in the interest of WP:BALANCE) FropFrop (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all editors who participated in similar discussions above, since we're short responses right now. Darkfrog24, Ortizesp, Markbassett, Mx. Granger, Pickalittletalkalittle, Guest2625, Adoring_nanny, {u|Aquillion}}, Governer_Sheng, Qflib, Belle_Fast, Glendoremus, Daveosaurus, FireboltLegend, Bacondrum, Paradise Chronicle. Banedon (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the broken ping for Aquillion. Loki (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

62.45.138.54 Sslaptnhablhat Banedon (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate Vipz Banedon (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.113.230.8 If you have an opinion on whether the page should include examples, add your reasons here. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I stand by my previous assessment that this list should not contain any real-world examples. I'm sure every tin-pot dictator anywhere has had their own fan club - but that doesn't mean they're benevolent. Ask Spain after the Peninsular War how "benevolent" Napoleon was. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I see no way to objectively decide whether a benevolent dictator is even a real thing that has actual examples in reality. Personally, I think the article is most useful when it discusses the concept abstractly, since to me it's a theoretical idea anyway. Qflib (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per my answer the last time this was asked, and no in strongest possible terms to the specific version proposed here. Obviously any wording that would imply in the article voice that someone is a benevolent dictator or is an "example" of benevolent dictatorship is completely unacceptable for being non-neutral, while a hypothetical "list of people who have been called benevolent dictators by someone" would be a mess of random opinions and unlikely to improve the article. Individual people who are vital to the history and definition of the term might be mentioned very very briefly in the prose at various points, if there are sources establishing that they are vital to the concept of a benevolent dictator (not just some rando calling them one), provided we avoid framing them as a "list of examples" or anything else that would invite a bloated list of arbitrary additions. But the "modern examples" section in the link above is in particular completely unusable and no part of it should be restored or used, in any iteration or permutation, for any version of the article going forwards. The opinions it cites are trivial and WP:UNDUE, and the examples poorly-supported and poorly-chosen; even by the standards of the already-terrible idea of adding such a list, it is shockingly biased and low-quality to the point where it should be reverted on sight. Nothing in it is salvageable. But worst of all, most of the sources don't even mention benevolent dictatorship. In fact, each one is accompanied by a glowing bit of WP:SYNTH where an editor attempts to argue for why they were actually totally a benevolent dictator by stringing together their own editorialized history of each individual using sources that don't call them a benevolent dictator at all; and this synthesis makes up more than half the text of most entries, generally pinned unconvincingly to a single sentence from a single piece pulled out of context and given massively undue weight. That's completely unacceptable. The absolute most we can say, ever, is "ABC called XYZ a benevolent dictator, citing X, Y, and Z" - repeating someone else's argument, not constructing our own. And even that has massive WP:DUE weight issues and shouldn't be structured as a list for reasons that the bloated mess of synthesis that sprung up here should make clear. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consistent with my original opinion, providing examples aids clarity on the topic. I would add that if WP:NPOV is the issue, a few editors have suggested using the language "sources have labeled said dictator as benevolent," which seems like a great solution to me, especially if we provide opposing viewpoints as well to keep everything WP:DUE. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but limited to historical - as posted in the previous round, include the origin of the phrase with the historical model of Cincinnatus, who held the office literally called Tyrant and is widely described as a "beneficial" tyrant. Other possibilities of such include Augustus, Peisistratos, or Fabius (see here). Anything remotely modern would be political and a metaphorical use of the WP:LABEL, so I skip speaking to that. Except - perhaps mention that "benevolent dictator" is the literal job title in some tech development fields, e.g. Guido van Rossum (Python) or Linus Torvalds (Linux). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I actually do agree we should mention the practice in open source software of having someone whose title is either literally or effectively "benevolent dictator". I am less convinced we should have examples but it's at least more plausible to me than the case of literal dictators because the NPOV concerns are much less. Loki (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No There will always be some who consider a given dictator as being benevolent, but that's simply because they were not on the sharp end of the dictatorship. Reading back the examples given make this point very clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No The example sections given above are mostly WP:SYNTH and rely and very poor sourcing. Strongly disagree with putting sources in with attribution as well, as these views are more than likely fringe. The only exception in my view is if a source demonstrates that a group of historians believe a certain dictator could be considered a 'benevolent dictator'. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

OK, so now what do we do? Closure is no consensus as to whether examples of benevolent dictators should be included, which presumably also indicates no consensus that examples should not be included. That puts us right where we started, unless someone actually puts in the work to write the "historical examples described by reliable historians as "benevolent dictators"". Banedon (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to suggest going back to DRN, since we've not gotten anywhere. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Loki (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]