Talk:Dictator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Democradura

Colombia is the absolute best example of illiberal democracy. —Seselwa 06:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The most simple route is a Google search for Colombia democradura or Colombia "illiberal democracy". There are several references, including Eduardo Galeano. So, yes, Colombia has been "called" a democradura (mainly because it is). —Seselwa 20:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You think you know a lot, Sesel? I happen to live here, it's hardly a "democradura". Left-wing groups that toss explosive potatos at policemen would have you believe it's a repressive country (and sadly, you fell for it). But I hardly think a trade union leader becoming mayor of Bogotá is really representative of an official democradura.

Kapil 01:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The destruction of civil rights comes from all sides of the conflict, not just the state. In reality, it is not possible to isolate the violations of the state, the FARC/ELN, and the death squads. Added together it is a repressive society. Living there gives you a conflict of interest (pro-Uribe and fervent anti-Communist) that can not be reconciled with Wiki policy unless you at least attempt to present information in a neutral tone. The article reads: "The governments of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Haiti have at various times been considered "democradura" regimes", not "Sesel possesses absolute truth and says that Colombia is a quasi-dictatorship where normal elections can't be held because of threats of violence and the government is trying to manipulate the constitution like some West African banana republic to give Uribe another term and whose president's father had links to shady business interests and where over 30 journalists have been killed in the last decade." (something that I would never add, because it doesn't matter what I think.) The article as it stands reflects reality: Colombia has at various times been considered a democradura, and you can't really dispute that given that several prominent people call it just that! —Seselwa 03:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There's too much left to be said here, but in a few words: Keep Colombia in the list. Yet considering that Mexico, and a few other countries have also been considered as "democraduras" at various times and also by diverse analysts or individuals (check Google, if it were a matter of Google results), it might be worthwhile to consider expanding the list in order to provide a more representative sample, as whether or not Colombia is the "absolute best example" of the term is an entirely different and much more questionable subject, very much open to debate. Several "prominent people" does not a concensus make, as there are also several "prominent people" with the opposite position...or a variation of the same, or simply one that doesn't fit either of the two molds. It's not as simple as that. Juancarlos2004 22:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

My point was that since some people call Colombia a democradura, it fits the article's description that it "has at various times been considered a democradura regime." It's not any more complicated than that! —Seselwa 22:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hence I can agree with you, as far as that particular point is concerned.Juancarlos2004 23:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

gradually eroded

Can someone explain why my edit was reverted without comment and how gradually eroded relates to Hitler in paragraph three? -- JJay 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? Didn't Hitler move rapidly to eliminate constitutional restraints? -- JJay 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw has a new and excellent biography - full of new information. But there are many others. Read. As to your question - the Nazi party started to erode the constitutional restraints of the republic long before Hitler became chancellor. Even then it took them some 3 years to eliminate the old German constitution (and write a new one at Nurenberg). To a large part, they only broke loose after old Hindenburg died. The process took several years. Is that quick or gradual? mousomer 09:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Map

Just as it was with the list of dictators page, tha map on this page is entirely POV...we would have to state that "all countries in this map are not globally considered to be dictatorships" or the map has to be deleted.Kiske 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The intro.

It strikes me as odd that the intro leads with the origin of the word, and only then gives its modern definition. Shouldn't it be the other way around--common definition first, and origin + archaic usage further down? I'm not entirely sure the original usage belongs in the lead section at all. --Aquillion 18:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What, no images?

Surely there's at least one person we can uncontroversially call a dictator? Other images must be suitable too, e.g. dictatorial propaganda posters etc. Richard001 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Classical dictators

In this section, I replaced "dictator" with "dictator rei gerendae causa" to emphasize its classical emphasis. I also went into the article on the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and put this Latin term in (the word "dictator" still had its classical connotations during Marx's time, so he understood it to be "dictator rei gerendae causa" - thus his application of this to a larger collective rule of the proletariat.)

(Darth Sidious, Nov. 3, 14:25 PST)

This section contains two paragraphs which largely say the same thing. To remove the redundancy I have compounded to one paragraph, and added a main article pointer to Roman dictator. --Iacobus 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why arent China, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand ranked as current dictatorships

there all states dominated by a single party, with an authoritarian leadership. All opposition is suppressed, doesnt that qualify them as being current dictatorships. I mean you cant tell me that Cuba and Egypt are more so dictatorships than China, one of the worst human rights abusers in the world?

Because they aren't rulers for life and u can't call someone a dictator just because they're bad look at gerorge bush and vladimir putin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.164.35 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean "dictatorship" in the sense that a country is ruled by one man holding absolute power with no way for the people to remove him from office, then none of those states are dictatorships. They are each ruled by a small group of people who each have substantial power. One man may be stronger than the others, but he can be (and often is) removed if he gets on the wrong side of too many of the other power brokers. The power struggle in China after Mao Zedong's death is a good example of this, and the same thing happened in the USSR after the deaths of Lenin, Stalin and Brezhnev. A good example from a non-Communist state was Japan during the WW2 era. A lot of Americans mistakenly call Hideki Tojo a dictator, but he was just one of many who held significant power, and happened to be prominent when Japan went to war with the U.S. Neither he nor anyone else ever consolidated their power. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

benevolent dictators?

I have twon benevolent dictators. First, in the classic formulation dictators are benevolent (e.g. Cincinnatus). Second, do any of Fidel Castro's supporters call him a benevolent dictator? Evidence? This whole section seems radically un-encyclopedic, offering no scholarship or critical leverage. Slrubenstein

The benevolent dictator section should only list those leaders who are considered benevolent dictators by their supporters. Castro does not belong, because his supporters do not consider him to be a dictator (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/democracy.htm). Gattster

---

you would be surprised on how proud most cubans are about Castro. You shouldnt believe at all in what you have heard about Cuba from american media, Castro's coup was justified, was heroic guerrilla warfare and even though Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world, some of the things that they have acomplished are even beyond any american achievement (as in education, health, housing and drug erradication, fields that Cuba has succeded in one way or another)... its a very different country (its a good place to live... no technology though, theres barely any phones or clothe)

In that case why don't you live in Cuba? Once the Castros die, Cuba will become democratic.

---

"democratic" as in the Batistas, Somozas, Pinochets USA has supported over the years? Or "democracy by the gun" as it is currently installing in Iraq through a "scorched earth campaign"? In reality, Cuba has been more "democratic", or better said more atune with human rights and dignity that the so called "democratic" regimes US foreign policy likens.

---

On what was mentioned about Cincinnatus, I believe that he should be included in the article, for he was definitely a "benevolent dictator". He showed great self control and love for his country, and showed true pietas (duty to one's country and family). --Divya da animal lvr (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What about George W Bush being the World Dictator?

WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It fits to most of the arguments for being a dictator. George W Bush took the international law into his hands. He bypassed United Nations, and took the power, laws and lives of another country in his own hands, leading to the death of more than 655,000 civilians. He also lead a military coup to bring down the President of Iraq by force. --Rocksea 09:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Bush (according to most accounts, at least) breached the international law. That is completely different from making law.--Ezadarque 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Since the 2003 invasion, laws and rulers of Iraq has been dictated by Bush led coalition.--Rocksea 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC) That would make him the dictator of Iraq, not of the world. But he does not sign the laws. If Iraq had a dictator, it would be the American in charge of the occupation. Now that they have had elections, not even that. Moreover, in the modern sense of the word, dictators must belong to the society they rule. The case in Iraq is of international intervention, condemned by international law, but not of dictatorship. Dictatorship is different from military occupation. Hitler was never referred to as the dictator of France, only of Germany. Nor Hirohito the dictator of Manchuria. --Ezadarque 13:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Bush is an democratically elected leader, you idiot. Equinox137 (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictablanda

I'm concerned about the following:

Governments in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Eritrea, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela have at various times been considered régimes by different critics and opposition groups, not necessarily with an academic or political consensus about the application of the term emerging.

There're no references. Mexico, for instance has been a democracy for over 80 years. --Karljoos (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazarbaev

What abour the president of Republic of Kazakhstan Nursulat Nazarbaev? He is the obviously real dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.54.66 (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The Kim Dynasty

According to the article:

"A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power with military control but, without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch."

Wouldn't the condition about "hereditary ascension" suggest that members of the Kim "dynastic line" (for lack of a better term), by definition, cannot be considered dictators? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.33.195 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Urho Kekkonen president of Finland a dictator?

Was Urho Kekkonen president of Finland a dictator? I know he was autocratic, but was it during times of emergency or was it an actual dictatorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.12.44 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he was just autocratic and had a significantly long term as a president, but definitely not a dictator. --Tirkka (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini

"Note that these definitions disregard some alleged dictators, e.g. Benito Mussolini, who are not interested in the actual achieving of social goals, as much as in propaganda and controlling public opinion." In what way was Mussolini not interested in social goals? The article isn't very clear here.

I'd like to see a citation too. I find it hard to believe the even Mussolini ever expressed that he only wanted to control people's minds and had no interest whatsoever in enriching their lives. The section makes him sound like a cartoon villain. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Churchill

OK, I will probably annoy a few people, but rest assured, I don't mean to. But in light of the original meaning and function of a dictator, could we include Winston Churchill? I know he wasn't an "absolutist or autocratic ruler" but he wasn't elected by a popular vote. And he was Prime Minister during a the "duration of a military conflict". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efrasnel (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

In parliamentary systems of government no leader is strictly elected as a leader. The parliament is elected (by whatever means and franchise) and the leader of the government is chosen on the basis of the parliament. Whilst in many countries this is now treated as a bit of a rubber stamp and parties fight the parliamentary elections on the basis of what they'd do if they formed the government, it is still very much the case that the parliament is crucial for making and unmaking the government, and such a leader's authority rests on constitutionalism. A lot of British/UK PMs have taken office without an election - practically every single one before the 1830s and many, many since.

Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933 (as opposed to Führer in 1934) isn't really different from this. Remember also that he went to the polls six weeks after his appointment. It's the process of consolidating power that created the dictatorship - saying Hitler became the dictator of Germany on January 30th 1933 isn't really accurate. And in some areas he retained a fig of constitutionalism - the Enabling Act was for four years and renewed as such, the declaration that the presidency was dormant and Hitler becoming Führer were supported by a plebiscite. Timrollpickering 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, how can you call a man a "dictator" when he is voted out of office by a free election during a time when the war is still going on? Not to mention that the opposition was willing to let him stay Prime Minister until the war was over anyway, but Churchill voluntarily stepped aside for Clement Attlee. In no way can Churchill be paralleled to Adolf Hitler. Hitler did come to power legally, and for sure was NOT a dictator on 30 January 1933. He became one on 23 March 1933, when the Enabling Act turned over total power of the state to the government, or at the latest when all political opposition was outlawed in July.

The only dictator in the history of Great Britain was Oliver Cromwell. Churchill was not a dictator, nor did he aspire to be one. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Churchill was a dictator only in the classical Roman sense -- someone with unusual powers during the duration of a great danger, and only for that time, and none not extant in law . As for not being elected, he achieved power through the legitimate means of a parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister is never directly elected by the people but instead by elected officials themselves elected in free and competitive elections. Churchill never conducted a purge; indeed he gladly introduced members of the opposition Party (never suppressed!) into the Government because he trusted that they had the same stake in the preservation of the political system. For the danger that Britain faced, Churchill caused as little political blood to be shed. Oswald Mosley survived the war in Britain, for God's sake.

Due process of law, civil liberties, and rights for ethnic and religious minorities remained intact in Britain. No destruction of the basic decencies of a democracy implies that Britain under Churchill was not a modern dictatorship. No dictatorship? Then the leader was no dictator. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why concered Ataturk as a dictator

Why would Ataturk be considered a dictator when he was elected by the people even though there was only one party he should still not be considered a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.214.110 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if he was comparatively benign, he was still a dictator. Turkish elections were obviously not free. Sure, he might have sought to liquidate the undemocratic characteristics of his regime, but he didn't do it. No worse than Dollfuss or Schuschnigg, neither of whom murdered their opponents? Maybe.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

what does this have to do with misrule?

Dictatorship may be considered instance of misrule, but is certainly not exclusively so and the subject deserves its own treatment, and not subsumed under this heading. I'm frankly astonished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.171 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Stanton

Perhaps Edwin Stanton was, and was intended to be, a dictator in the Roman and Jacobin sense, appointed to rule by the Senate to carry forward the Revolution against the defeated slave owning South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.226.163 (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dubious link

http://www.planetrulers.com/current-dictators/ seems inaccurate, listing among others Bolivia's twice democratically elected president Evo Morales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.241.74 (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the definition of "dictator" that precludes the possibility of a rise to power through a democratic electoral process. Adolf Hitler assumed the presidency of Germany democratically. However, I do agree that the "Planet Rulers" list casts far too wide of a net and implicates rulers that do not meet the classical definition of "dictator". Uncle Dick (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Evo Morales possess "sole and absolute power"? Evo Morales is elected democratically and is even to the Wikipedia definition no dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.245.59 (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Dictators

Were any of these leaders dictators?

Mátyás Rákosi - Hungary

Todor Zhivkov - Bulgaria

Lenin USSR alot of sources still say he's a dictator

Leonid Brezhnev - USSR

Nikita Khrushchev - USSR

Nicolae Ceauşescu - Romania

Nicolae Ceauşescu - Romania

Enver Hoxha - ALbania

Erich Honecker of East Germany

Antonín Novotný and Gustáv Husák of Czechoslovakia

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - Turkey described bysome as benevolent dictator.

Jozef Tiso sometimes considered a dictator even though he was picked by Hitler it seems he was an absolute ruler of a sovregn nation, though.

Slobodan Milosevic - Yugoslavia considered a dictator epsecially his genocide policies.

Someone even said Benito Mussolini was not a dictator despite so many sources saying otherwise.

I think Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus should be considered a dictator despite all the talk. Especially if the "CIA World Factbook" lists him as one.

An can some visit this site I made it because wikipedia removes list-of-dictators so I'm trying to start one with the discussion board aswell.

http://dictators-page.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Dictators

An maybe you guys can help me with the list.

Let me help you by saying that; people must refrain from being interested in things that their IQ is insufficient for them. You can't imagine children die of starving each minute, people get fired every day, mothers that clean schools because of expenditure on education. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 22:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Iran

I've removed Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and Ruhollah Khomeini from the list; neither was supported by the given source. Khamenei was mentioned not by the given source, but by another of our current sources, so I kept him and sorted him under "I" for "Iran". Huon (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

About the dictators

Why Chinese Communist leader Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, Soviet communist leaders Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, Cuban President Raul Castro, Argentina military junta leader Jorge Rafael Videla, Roberto Eduardo Viola, Leopoldo Galtieri, Reynaldo Bignone, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat are not dictators???????Marxistfounder (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you prove Vladimir Lenin, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev are dictators? Dictatorship is not just a fact that can be learned by studying propagandas. Stalin is on the list by the way. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 13:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeltsin

I have restored Yeltsin whom I added previously. It is referenced that he was a dictator, and also he ordered tanks to shoot at the parliament in violation of constitution in 1993. The constitutional court decided it was illegal, but he neglected the decision. Earlier he got extraordinary powers.--Anixx1 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of being called a dictator he more deserves to be titled with a nearly untranslatable Russian word распиздяй.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.206.10 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is Muammar Gaddafi a "dictator"?

Please give credible and consistent evidence to the claim of Muammar Gaddafi being a dictator.

"CBS News" is by no means any credible evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.245.59 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Don't know either, last time there was the RFC about it, but still some users are not giving up the myth of Gaddafi being dictator, which usually born after 22 feb 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.56.88 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

The article was vandalized so many times, especially by anti-socialists. The article is also not neutral, due to the fact that many people use the word "dictator" for propaganda.

The article must be deleted. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion, really? You've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know articles aren't just deleted because they're a target for vandalism or if the neutrality needs to be sorted out. Mason Doering (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Really. Not just because of vandalisms. The reason is nearly the same as deletion reason of List of modern dictators. They add names of people they don't like. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 20:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not just because of vandalism but also because of vandalism? Okay. Mason Doering (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha :D You made me laugh! Its not that difficult to click two links. WP:BLP Some of them may be living dictators, but biographies of living persons policy is still violated. So this is not VANDALISM. The others are WP:NOR WP:NPOV. What a misery... - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 00:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So intentionally breaking policies isn't vandalism? That's new to me. Mason Doering (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 17:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Avatar86, that's true, the names have been added here, which are not liked by the users, thus this page has every bit of the reason to be deleted, just like the previous one had. I think the list should be removed at least. 122.169.56.88 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the article

I say again, contents added by users, especially with IP adresses, are not neutral. People keep adding names of people they dislike, they probably think they are saving the world.

I think this article doesn't comply with wikipedia policies. People keep adding names of people without any source. Also, added sources may contain propaganda purposes as some of them do.

Moreover, there are living people in the list. This is a violation of WP:BLP.

There are so many people in the list that really differ from each other. There is no certain meaning of dictator in the article.

The article must be deleted. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

At least the list must be deleted. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I say again and again, the article has no solemnity. People edit the article because of their political ideas. They add people they dislike. Even citations from websites are not satisfactory (most of people don't even use them).

Wikipedia mustn't be a website that people edit because of their ideas.

The article or the list must be removed. - Avatar⁸⁹⁶ 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here as an editor not involved. The page should stay as is since regardless of your political bent, I'm sure you can agree there is an accepted definition of a dictator. As for the list that was removed, I see no issue with citing current dictators if they can be properly sourced. By this I mean, multiple sources of unique articles from credible third party news sources citing someone as a dictator. The only problem with this is that new leaders are not automatically dictators simply because their predecessor was. Also, since the is the English version of Wikipedia, it must reflect the English speaking world's view. Thus, simply because Iran calls Stephen Harper a dictator, doesn't mean it belongs here. If that is the prevailing idea in the Farsi world, it belongs on the Farsi version of this page. The other issue with this is that does a list of current dictators fall into WP:TRIVIA?

Despite the attempt for neutrality on Wikipedia, it is impossible to do so. Since this entire encyclopedia is based on the prevailing idea of only using third party sources, if person X is generally accepted in English third party sources to be a dictator, they are a dictator period. Unfortunately, it would appear that the anonymous IP editors are as guilty as the registered editors who frequent this page of allowing their own biases to creep into the page. I'd say at this point, if any editor believes that this page should be deleted, they should nominate for deletion. Since Wikipedia is built on consensus, one user asking for deletion on a talk page is like yelling out the window, nothing with happen without the formal process. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to know about the concensus and discussion about whether a list of dictators should be included in the article

I saw someone posted a section of #List of Dictators in Modern Times and also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_dictators, but I am still quite confused on what happened and why.--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern use in formal titles

This section seems to have gained a number who I suspect did not actually use "Dictator" as part of their formal titles - and so should be removed.

I am not doing that, because I haven't checked in detail - but I think the entries for Pakistan, Uganda and Bangladesh should all come out. -- Beardo (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Modern usage in formal titles list

The section Modern usage in formal titles has a list that seems to be ill-formatted. Are there any ideas for better ways to format this section other than the current bullet point cascade? Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I dropped the first-level bullets as superfluous. However, the section needs references. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Idi Amin's titles

I propose removing this sentence from the "Modern Era" section: "For instance, Idi Amin Dada, who had been a British army lieutenant prior to Uganda's independence from Britain in October 1962, subsequently styled himself 'His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular'." I don't think it's actually established that dictators commonly award themselves grandiloquent titles - Amin did, but Hitler, Stalin & Mussolini did not. If anything (it seems to me) dictators more often style themselves as simple men of the people. Either way, that sentence about Amin looks WP:UNDUE to me Chuntuk (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Usage of "Freedom House" map

From my edit summaries:

"Freedom House receives their funding on the condition that they portray their sponsors in a good light, since if they didn't, they would not receive funding, creating thus a special financial relationship which independent news orgs. do not have. Freedom House is thus not disinterested on the topics it covers, does not have editorial independence and has special financial relationships"

Freedom House thus:

1. Is not disinterested in the topics it covers (bias)

There is no problem with bias unless there is a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest here is potential for financial gain (from having a specific point of view)

2. Does not have editorial independence; is not an independent source (their funding depends on their sponsors who dictate their content, since if they do not report in their favor they would lose funding)

3. Has a special financial relationship (same elaboration as in point 2)

It is due to these three violations of WP:IS that I believe the Freedom House map should not be included.
Fasscass (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "Freedom House receives their funding on the condition that they portray their sponsors in a good light etc” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't need a source to support a simple process of logic: the US government would have no reason to fund the organization should they speak against it. Indeed, seeing everything they have done throughout their history (see Freedom House), Freedom House's definitive purpose is advancing US interests, even abroad.

Also note that for a source to even exist on the condition, this condition would have to be explicitly stated in some contract or financial statement. This is not the case, as they have no legal requirement to include it. As such, a source for this wouldn't even exist, making your request impossible and not worth considering. Fasscass (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If no source exists which can support your assertion then there isn’t anything actionable we can do with it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Not true. This is the talk page, not the article itself. Discussion does not imperatively require sources to prove points. If we were discussing adding something to the article then indeed we'd require sources, but this isn't the case. See WP:EQ, WP:BRD and such guidelines that concern this talk section, none of which mention backing up claims with sources as a necessity, let alone entirely disregarding points when sources do not exist to back them up, because these sources cannot exist.

In summary, the discussion continues, and I again reference my initial three points for the removal of the Freedom House map. Fasscass (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can’t really follow your argument without sources, you appear to be using circular logic. As far as I can tell Freedom House does speak against the US [1] so its circular logic based on an apparently faulty assumption. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant that the Freedom House does not denounce the US. Your link shows them criticizing the US to a very slight degree, but nothing comparable to their active and historical behavior of supporting the US everywhere else. It was literally founded as a propaganda organization with "the quiet support of FDR"[2], after all.
Just in case, I'll revise my latest assertion: "the US government would have no reason to fund the organization should they show an overall negative view of them on their reports"

As for the circular reasoning part, my argument does not use it. See the article for circular reasoning. Fasscass (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So tell me, how do you know that "Freedom House receives their funding on the condition that they portray their sponsors in a good light” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Through the logical process that is "Because the Freedom House is funded by the US and does serve their interests, they would most definitely cease to be funded by them if they stopped serving these interests"
And then comes my three original points. Fasscass (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that this is “most definitely” true? Also as currently constructed thats not a WP:RS issue, are you sure you don’t mean to add another sentence to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All the three points that I stated at first violate WP:IS, which WP:RS depends on since every reliable source must be independent, as per the guideline's overview.

All the points violate "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic."
They do so because:

1. Freedom House has no editorial independence, since its content must be determined by the US government which funds it (functions only with this funding), who would have no reason to fund it if they showed an overall negative view of them in their reports. This also means it is not disinterested (does not have no "vested interest")

2. (and) Has a conflict of interest (potential for financial gain) from pushing a specific point of view

As for your first sentence, I will not repeat my reasoning. Let's not hinder the progress of this discussion. Fasscass (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source which supports your assertion that "its content must be determined by the US government which funds it” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, I don't need a source for simple logical processes, and even then such a source cannot exist. Please see WP:EQ and WP:BRD to learn how your request for a source is not necessary. I also remind you that, assuming you're acting in good faith and working towards it, we are supposed to be achieving consensus, as per WP:BRD. Thus I repeat: "Let's not hinder the progress of this discussion"
Fasscass (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have read both WP:EQ and WP:BRD, neither appears to support your argument that sources aren’t necessary for this. Please be specific about the exact language you’re seeing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing in those articles suggesting that one would need to give sources for proving a simple deduction. As such, in order to achieve consensus, we will not arrive at an impasse due to your request. So, please refer to my points as to why the Freedom House map should be removed. Fasscass (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But its not a simple deduction, its an extremely complicated one that is predicated on points which don’t actually appear to exist. You also draw a concrete conclusion from your deduction when the way you’ve set it up you could only draw a likely conclusion from it. I don’t find your argument convincing, neither does anyone else it seems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please specify how it's "extremely complicated" and how the points I make "don't seem to exist". And in good faith if possible, which includes not brigading a different talk page. Fasscass (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"Freedom House has no editorial independence, since its content must be determined by the US government which funds it (functions only with this funding), who would have no reason to fund it if they showed an overall negative view of them in their reports. This also means it is not disinterested (does not have no "vested interest”)” is three levels of extrapolation, none of which you’ve provided any evidence for. How do you know that its content must be determined by the US government? How do you know that it functions only with this funding? How do you know that the US would have no reason to fund it if they showed an overall negative view of them in their reports? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just nitpicking. Any organization requires funding in order to function, and the US government provides it. I cannot simplify this further.
Moreover, the US would only fund this organization if it brought them some benefit. We can verify this through empirical means, such as knowing that the US often does this kind of investment: funding a third party to carry out their interests, be it a propaganda org. (or at least one able to produce propaganda), a terrorist org., etc. In all of these examples, the end result is the same: the US funded an organization in order to benefit from their actions. We may even use the process of elimination to easily conclude that there is no good reason for the US to fund Freedom House other than being benefited by the organization pushing points of view that benefit their interests. This reason is more logical than any other because of historical consistency.
Just in case, I'll repeat which part of WP:IS and thus WP:RS all this violates:

"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic."

Fasscass (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggest one of you take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. It certainly does not seem like the debate will be resolved here on the talk page.Estnot (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be up to the challenger to do that, something makes me think they won’t though as their argument is baseless and unsupported. I will also note that since dictator and not the USA is the topic of this page the argument is kind of pointless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines indiucate that bias in a source does NOT disqualify its use. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." from WP:BIASEDSOURCES. In any case the allegations above against Freedom House are entirely imaginary and do not depend on ANY source. Freedom House maps are used by tens of thousands of scholarly sources, which you can find at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q="freedom+house"+maps&btnG= Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

1: I already talked of including sources in this discussion already, please do not repeat arguments

2: It was never implied by anyone that bias in a source alone makes it unreliable

3: The rest of your reply is unrelated to the topic at hand
Fasscass (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fasscass says the FH "portray their sponsors in a good light" -- which sponsors--The Biden Administration or the Trump Administration --is it the White House or Treasury or State or Congress or just who is calling the shots? Rjensen (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's quite irrelevant, as their funding has come from the US government since at least 2006. Not that either of those administrations differ ideologically enough for one to cease or restart funding, though. Fasscass (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

in other words Fasscass is unable to specify who in the government sets the policy for Freedom House--be it Congress, White House or State or whoever. That comes from not using any published sources and relying on uninformed speculation. Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whether the US funds Freedom House isn't up to discussion. See the financial reports featured in the Freedom House article [3] [4] [5] Fasscass (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Choice of word in image caption

@Rjensen I don't think "typically" is the right word here, carries a similar connotation to "often" - attempts to implicitly establish a general consensus, or even a WP:Consensus. I changed it to "sometimes" because there isn't a consensus as to whether all of those shown in the image were truly "dictators" in the way described in the article (autocratic); for instance, someone brought up recently on the Mao Zedong talkpage how Mao encouraged and brought forth a ton of new political participation and decentralization, which is hardly autocratic. Perhaps "sometimes" isn't the right word, but "typically" and "often" aren't either. Amyipdev (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The preponderance of scholarship calls most of them "dictator." The notion that Mao was not a dictator is a fringe view, I suggest. Mao's usual policy was that the CP made all decisions, and he controlled the CP. For proof, look at the recent scholarly literature (since 2018) at this link to google scholar As for the Mao talk page, one person suggested (with zero sources) that for several years in the late 1960s Mao encouraged grass roots attacks on his enemies, with millions persecuted. You say that is democracy?? The episode came in a career that covered a half century. Try naming a few scholars who say Mao was NOT a dictator--you can use this link Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

First off, no need to get oppositional, I was just presenting an alternative view shown on the talkpage. Perhaps we can find a compromise term to use.

Secondly, Wikipedia isn't a battleground. While I understand (and don't agree with) your position that Mao not being a dictator is a fringe position, there's still enough disagreement that we should pay *some* care to it. If it was a full, widespread debate, there wouldn't even be images of them on the page; I think that "sometimes" or "some" being used as words here should be enough of a compromise, still reflecting the """consensus""" view while acknowledging opposition. Amyipdev (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

In the lead image caption, please remove top to bottom in picture, include and replace it with top to bottom:. (Note the colon at the end.) "in picture" is obvious, and it would be absurd to interpret the caption as meaning that these six are the only leaders considered to be dictators. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Should absolute monarchs be considered dictators?

They seemingly meet all the criteria for dictatorship, right? [[User:Rickyrab2|Rickyrab (2nd account)!]] | [[Talk:Rickyrab2| yada yada yada]] (old page: [[User:Rickyrab]]) (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"The List of Dictators" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The List of Dictators has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 15 § The List of Dictators until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)