Jump to content

Talk:Dictator/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Inappropriate Caption under Stalin's Picture?

I'm not disputing using Stalin as a poster child for dictator, nor am I saying he was a good person by any means. No really. The man was a criminal to humanity. I can't stress that enough.

But Stalin's caption is at odds with the first question this article should pose, which is "What is the definition of Dictator?" It currently reads:

"Under the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin, tens of millions of people were executed, starved to death or imprisoned in labor camps."

That indirectly tells me that dictators slaughter their own populations in droves, starving them, or send them by the thousands to prison camps to assert their authority. Many dictators do. I certainly wouldn't argue with that point. But that isn't the definition of a dictator. After all, many businesses are run by dictators who came to power because they started their own business. Those people don't murder their employees if they disagree with them. The same could be said about any tribal dictator where leaving the tribe is always an option.

In my opinion, the caption under Stalin's name should stress his absolute authority, not make an emotional appeal of what he did with that power. So, it should say something like:

"Joseph Stalin, who used the Russian KGB to execute and imprison all potential rivals as 'enemies of the state', ensuring his absolute authority as ruler of the Soviet Union."

Jmgariepy (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Stalin wasn't a dictator.. just because the USA decides to describe a leader/president that goes against them or doesn't support them, a "dictator" doesn't mean he is a dictator! I personally adore this person for saving the world from nazism. I prefer deleting the name Stalin and vladimir lenin from the "dictator" list since there are lots of "democratic" countries that using the excuse of "democracy" to torture their citizens with corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.150.33 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, also you need to remove Xi Jinping because he’s not a dictator, if he’s a dictator trump is a super dictator Rgt2004 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

List of Dictators in Modern Times

Initial alphabetical listing

I wanted to find out about dictators and their history, particularly how their reigns came to an end. So I came here, only to find very little info on this page, and a list of dictators that's been redirected here. It's contents was as follows:


Why is belarus listed as a current dictatorship? The president is elected through democratic means.

Initial Discussion

I agree that the definition of a dictator is vague to have it boiled down to a list, but all of the above should be mentioned in this article, if some people call them dictators. I've put the list here to help towards a more detailed and useful article! -- Sam 12:12 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

There's a similar list (with a bit more text) in one of the old versions of The List of Dictators, which I just restored. See this revision if you want to try and salvage something
Jozef Tiso, Qusling were puppets, Erich Honecker was bureaucrat on top. I think you should know something about history before assembling such lists. Make it from half a dozen most known persons. Pavel Vozenilek 01:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why are you so intent on reducing Wikipedia's content? (cf Father of the Nation) A list of "half a dozen most known persons" would automatically be biased towards an American point of view, when there are dictators much nastier than the ones most Americans are familiar with (I give the "worst dictator" and "most psychopathic despot" awards to Francisco Macías Nguema, Equatorial Guinea, 1968-1979, a name I have never heard come up in any discussion besides the times I've mentioned him on Wikipedia). Such a list must be representative. —Seselwa 02:27, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because I think these list are based on idea that every nation simply must have at least one Father, at least one Dictator, etc. If an item is missing, some nasty/nice person will just be looked up, without much of thinking. This degrades such lists to joke and to vehicle to express hate/admiration, IMHO.
What I suggest is to limit such list, cover wide area and history, require thorough explanation and for every added name remove other one. Such rule would help to avoid wrong names (IMO) I see now and would stabilize the article. Pavel Vozenilek 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A few more dictators

I can think of a few more, if we're going for the definitive list of modern dictators:

Also, I would add Pinochet to the list of so-called "benevolent dictators". Like Franco, he is a hero to a large minority of his countrymen, who believe he "saved" them from Communism. But Kemal Atatürk is probably the best example of this kind of dictator. ---

Id take Pinochet away from that list, since numerous reports of his crimes have been let known in the media (plus a case of kleptocracy, as he stole more than 27 million dollars and stashed them in the Riggs bank). If well Pinochet's image peaked in the late 90s, it has been desotroyed little by little, today there are barely any Pinochet supporters who arent chauvinists (to top that all rightist politicians have also set them selves apart from Pinochet, right after the Riggs bank scandal), Pinochet has no support as of right now, people have noticed that he wasnt the "savior" of their time, as the situation was completely created by both america corporations (the ITT and minning corporations), the american goverment (The CIA, as they spent a whooping 10 millions in countering Allende) and the oposition (who boicotted everything, creating the black markets, this also includes the news pappers EL Mercurio, who recieved american finance, and radios Mineria & Agricultura).--Kessingler 23:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

Leonid Brezhnev a dictator?! he wasn't even close to become a dictator.. unlike Augusto Pinochet which definitely was a Ruthless dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14C:2C5:8100:1DF3:73E:7E8A:75DE (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

More discussion

I dont think Franco was a benevolent dictator! What about the thousands he ordered killed? What about the Spannish civil war and its consequences? In the 70's he was still executing oponents! Muriel Gottrop 10:25, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't study the above lists in detail, but I think they should be added to the article. They must not be forgotten. They are modern dictators, a dictator is just a dictator, this page should mention them, it's up to the people to judge them as "benevolent". An interesting link: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/killers.htm. Curero 19:33, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Any idea why List of dictators was scrapped ? No discussions could be found on the original talk page, though the page has an impressive history. What we're seeing in this article is that the list is coming back as a sub-section. So this list can either be put into List of dictators, or better, the old page be revived. Jay 20:15, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed Jiang Zemin from the list. First, he was President of the People's Republic of China, not the Republic of China. Don't get them mixed up! Second, his position in the government was not exactly absolute and he did not gain an "extraconstitutional or unconstitutional degree of power." I wouldn't object if someone put him back in the list again, provided you linked to the right China (not Taiwan!!).

I also removed Yuan Shikai. He wasn't a dictator durning the Qing Dynasty, although he was PM. Power was wielded by Empress Cixi until her death. Although his actions as President (for Life) of China were tyrannical, he was not around long and was abandoned by his supporters by the time he died. Nothing famous, I believe... --Jiang 17:44, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Possibly complete list. I tried to make it as wide-ranging as possible to avoid bias. Not wikified. No particular order. Formatting not great. Any changes should be made in subsequent comments; please don't edit the list itself.

List removed: see below

--TwinsFan48 November 29, 2003

What was your criteria for inclusion? Listing Ronald Reagan and Bush is definately going to cause some controversy. --Jiang 20:24, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also add that Yuan Shikai could not have possibly been dictator of Taiwan since Taiwan was part of the Japanese Empire when he was President of the Republic of China and declared himself Emperor of China. --Jiang 23:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Criteria for being on the list

You are probably much more knowledgeable than me when it comes to Chinese history, so I will take Yuan Shikai off the list.

Reagan and Bush have been denounced by both leftists and non-partisans for breaking international convention in funding and supplying guerrilla warfare in Central America (Reagan) and starting wars of uncertain legality in Afghanistan and Iraq (Bush). It should also be noted that Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and other presidents have been singled out by historians for their actions in East Timor and Vietnam, respectively.

Each person on the list had to meet at least two of the following criteria:

  • Generally regarded as a dictator (i.e. Hitler)
  • At least three references on the Internet to the person being an "authoritarian" ruler, excluding web sites of opposition parties (i.e. Nujoma)
  • A generally extraconstitutional way of conducting government affairs, including excessive corruption and/or extravagance (i.e. Rene Harris
  • Affiliation with an authoritarian communist or fascist regime (i.e. Mao)
  • A leader who rose to power unconstitutionally and used his power to spread extraconstitutional influence (i.e. Zerbo)
  • Excessively militaristic leader (i.e. Than Shwe)
  • Leaders of personality cults (i.e. Niyazov)
  • Leader of a regime repeatedly cited by international organizations for human rights abuses (i.e. Kim Il Sung)

If anything needs clarification, please let me know at my talk page. I can offer only one point of view, but I am attempting to be as neutral as possible.

--TwinsFan48 29 November 2003

Considering the criteria

Yuan Shikai can be considered. It's more correct to label that he was from "China".

I think "Generally regarded as a dictator" should be the only criteria. If we include people who are considered by a good number of people to be not dictators, then the list will soon dissappear. See Talk:List of dictators for a hasty vote that scrapped the first list.

We can argue that although Reagan and Bush followed an agressive foreign policy that might have broken international law, they were elected through democratic system, had their power checked by a congress, faced considerable opposition domestically, etc. Did they violate the Consitution? If it's controverisal, it doesn't belong. Let's stick to the short list that most readers would agree on. Some links of interest:[1][2]

Also, don't dictators need to be in full control of their countries? Who controls Singapore: Lee or Goh? China: Jiang or Hu? I believe they must be the sole power in the state to be dictators. Their legislatures must be rubber stamps.

Bremer? He takes orders from the Pentagon! --Jiang 01:12, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Include Bremer

I included Bremer because he can veto any decision made by Iraq's Governing Council. He also was involved in the recent seizure of Al-Arabiyah TV's facilities.

Here is a more refined selection:

List removed: see below

--TwinsFan48

Urho Kekkonen

Urho Kekkonen, Finland, would fit the list just well. The father of Finlandization, he kept an iron grip on the whole Finnish society. The truth about the 1978 election is that he was elected although already at the time he was unfit to rule. Finland did not have a direct democratic voting system, instead people voted for parliament members, who professed to vote for a certain candidate. However the results of previous elections had been so badly suspect, that leading to the 1978 election there was widespread speculation of a 'black horse' candidate who would not honor their pledge but would vote for Kekkonen anyway.

Outright propaganda films extolling the virtues of Kekkonen were produced and shown at all schools in Finland, where young children at an impressionable age were made to believe that Kekkonen was a true superman in all areas of life. This was not just words but actual doubles were used to present physical feats requiring olympic level skills, cutting and trick techniques were used to leave the impression that Kekkonen had just completed the feats. The Finns refer to this period also as Kekkos-Slovakia, which is a play on the fact that while people in Czech-Slovakia knew that they're part of the east, the general public of Finland were cleverly duped by Kekkonen to believe that they're completely autonomous and free from the influence of the Soviet Union. The word 'finlandization' ('suomettuminen' in Finnish) was rarely heard in public or media before Kekkonen's death, thanks to the process of finlandization and the ensuing strict self-censorship.

-- no username

To 68.76.119.27 / 68.76.107.85 / 200.118.35.175 :

Controversial Entries

I believe that it is inapropriate that it is suggested in the main article that George W Bush is a dictator, and I think his name should be removed.There is no suggestion that he rules in an undemocratic manner. I'm not convinced that Chiang Kai-Shek should be considered a mass-murderer. Of course he was a dictator, but how many deaths can truly be linked to him or his government? I would like to see some more research on this.

The entries you have made are controversial and are hence getting reverted. Please discuss on the talk-page why you think Ariel Sharon needs to be added to the list. Jay 05:24, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

List of (Notable and/or Modern) Alleged Dictators and Oligarchs

Both sides of the issue aren't fully considering NPOV. On one hand, if a dictator has a notable base of supporters, then it would violate NPOV to say flat out that person is a dictator. On the other hand, Wikipedia must not dodge controversial topics. Topics which are controversial must be on Wikipedia precisely because they are controversial (and, hence, notable).

The attempt to make a flat-out "list of dictators" is doomed to failure so use the adjective "alleged" or "accused". Then, if a significant number of people accuse so-and-so of being a dictator, that person must automatically go on the list.

As for the issue of whether a person has total control over a nation, that point can be disputed by supporters of the dictator. Does so-and-so really control the nation? Remember that dictatorships and oligarchies are always built up as a pyramid so the boundary conditions get fuzzy under NPOV. Thus, just include "oligarch" and restrict the list to the top oligarch of a particular nation.

I happened to see this deleted world dictators link and I was blown away. Very powerful snapshot of powerful men that hold so much power. We can't exclude such information from Wikipedia.

True, the list would spark discussion but the criterion can shift to "alleged" which shifts the burden of evidence. As for all the generated discussion, the list should include "#" links to followup sections that consider both sides of whether the person is a dictator or not.

WpZurp 00:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

How bad was Mao?

The statement that Mao was "responsible for millions of deaths" is supported by our own articles on the Cultural Revolution and Mao Zedong, so I think the reference here is appropriate. Probably either of those pages would be the best place to discuss it, though. Markalexander100 02:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I challenge you to prove that Mao was directly responsible for "millions of deaths". Without using other Wikipedia articles on the subject. 66.63.126.171
Google" "Mao millions of deaths" Will Harvard do? I'll cheerfully concede that the 30 million of the GLF were caused by Mao's wilful blindness rather than bloodthirstiness, but that's part of why dictators are not a good way to run a country. And the Anti-rightist campaign and the Cultural Revolution are very good parallels to the extermination of the kulaks and the purges in the USSR. Markalexander100 03:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
right, cos harvard is not filled with rich kids... who happend to be rightists...

Oh don't be so annoyed that commies like Mao are being called dictators. LOL

Idi Amin and the Army

I reverted "frequently use the military as a source of their legitimacy, and often wear military uniforms while in office. Pictured here is the well-decorated Idi Amin Dada of Uganda", since Amin was a high-ranking soldier before he became dictator (see Idi Amin). I accept the point about the dressing up (in every sense), but it's a different point from the one being made at this point in the article. It might be worth addressing separately, with a better example. Markalexander100 04:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tojo Hideki wasn't a dictator. I'm pretty sure that Franklin Delano Roosevelt held and exercized stronger power than Tojo Hideki. He was just a prime minister under the Meiji Constitution. In general, prewar Japanese cabinets were even more unstable than postwar cabinets and prewar prime ministers had weaker power than postwar ones. Although the wartime full mobilization system and the concurrent occupation of army minister enabled him to seize stronger power than other prime ministers, he was far removed from a dictator. --Nanshu 01:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would say the goverment of wartime Japan was totalitarian, but it was not a one-man dictatorship, and therefore Tojo was not a "dictator" in the sense that most of the men mentioned were. Reagan and Bush are/were not dictators. They were freely elected and could/can be removed from office by a democratic vote, and in the case of Reagan, he freely reliquished power when the Constitution required him to. The only U.S. President who comes even in the ballpark of being a dictator was FDR, and even he was far from it. Alleged violations of "international law" have nothing to do with dictatorship; that refers only to the nature and extent of a head of state's power over his own country. John

Desacato

I am not surprised for it is against the law to criticise Castro, to do this is desacato (lack of respect for authority) [3], [4], [5],[6]. An ordinary Cuba knows those who visit Cuba and who ask political questions react badly when given the "wrong answer", and frequently feel it is their duty to turn in any who criticize. By the way "Cubans" should be capitalized in English. El Jigüe 1-3-06

Open source comparision? Why

In the context of open-source projects, a "benelovent dictator"....

Do we really need a reference to open source projects in an article about governments? If wikipedia is to become useful we should avoid referencing these slashdot type running jokes.. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

I run a software development team, and we have a role of "benevolent dictator." When there is a dispute about the proper way to code something, the dictator makes a decision if the developers cannot arrive at one within 15-20 minutes. I wasn't aware that it was used commonly in open source projects, so I found this to be interesting. I'd like to see it remain on this page, but I wouldn't be upset if it were removed. Gattster 00:04:58, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Lenin quote

=Quotations =

  • Lenin, "The scientific concept of the dictatorship means nothing less than unlimited power, bound by no laws or rules, and directly based on violence."

Pages 59-60, ISBN 0231107269. It has also been found in this form, "The scientific concept of the dictatorship (of the proletariat) means nothing other than unlimited government unrestrained by any laws or any absolute rules and supporting itself by force." See [7] which cites Lance Morrow, "What Workers Get Out of Communism," Time 116:11, September 15. 1980, p. 102

Really? And where did Lenin say that, exactly? I have another document right here [8] containing the following quote:
Lenin, "The political form of a society wherein the proletariat is victorious in overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic."
From my understanding, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" wasn't meant to say we should install a dictatorship in an already democratic country. Communiests feel we currently have a hidden "dictatorship of the bourgeosie", which becomes appearant at times of crisis. Calling it a "dictatorship of the proletariat" just means that the working class makes the decisions, which can be made democratically. Gattster 00:10:03, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

I am not sure where Lenin uttered or wrote the quoted material regarding dictatorship although I have seen it several times previously. I give a page and book as well as a links which contains the quote although the exact language varies. The second quote put forth does not concern dictatorship, but Lenin's Orwellian representation that the regime he anticipated was something rather different from what it turned out to be. Interesting to establish the date and context for that too if we could. Fred Bauder 20:44, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The second quote does not concern dictatorship, but it does concern the first quote, by showing that Lenin was far from being an advocate of dictatorship (as the first quote makes him out to be). Moreover, my source for the second quote is a document written by Lenin himself, whereas your source for the first quote is a document written by someone else about Lenin. I'm not saying your quote is false, but since we don't know where and when Lenin said it, it might be completely out of context. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe inclusion of the quote in some context is important as the establishment of the dictatorship in the Soviet Union is shown to be a conscious act not something that was stumbled into. Fred Bauder 20:44, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Assuming it was a conscious act, the question is, a conscious act by whom? All sorts of people are blamed for the rise of dictatorship in the Soviet Union, and taking sides in this controversy (through blaming Lenin for it, for example) constitutes POV. Besides, I don't see why we need to have any quotes on this page at all. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds of quotes about dictatorship, many of them by the world's most influential political figures (not just Lenin), and we can't possibly include them all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think if you were to try to designate the most influential person of the twentieth century it would have to be Lenin. It was his seizure of power, establishment of his version of communism, and creation of the particular type of centralized government, which he saw as a dictatorship which defined the history of the twentieth century. That is why his statement is of such great significance. Fred Bauder 15:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Lenin, the most influential person of the 20th century? Hardly! First of all, you're looking at the issue the wrong way. The 20th century was remarkable for its politics, of course, but it was far more remarkable for the amazing progress in science and technology that took place during it. The most influential legacy of the 20th century is not in the field of politics, but in the field of science. Thus, the most influential person of the 20th century would be someone like Albert Einstein rather than someone like Lenin. Second of all, the great influence on the century that you are talking about was not Lenin himself, but rather the image of Lenin as drawn by his successors. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Due to the lead of Lenin, Communist states throughout the twentieth century and even today are ruled by tiny groups of self-appointed party leaders. Generations of progressives have believed and acted on the theory that dictatorship of this nature was necessary in order to achieve humanistic goals. Some expression of the theoretical basis for dictatorship needs to be set forth in the article. But of course an exact source needs to be found. The quote sounds right and the references are reputable enough but somewhere in the Works of Lenin the exact quote exists and ought to be quoted. Fred Bauder 16:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Works of Lenin are rather massive, which means there is a high probability you will find anything in there if you look hard enough. Lenin was, after all, a human being - and human beings occasionally change their minds on certain issues. This is one fact which many people seem to fail to understand: The same person may have well supported entirely different things at different points in his/her life. But I digress. My biggest problem with including Lenin quotes is that it seems to draw on the stalinist habit of using Lenin (or rather, their selected excerpts from Lenin) as the ultimate, absolute authority on anything and everything about communism. Thus, if Lenin said or did something objectionable, anti-communists will throw it as an ad hominem attack on all communists, as if any of them had anything to do with it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following is from [9] and provides at least a clue as to the origin of the quotation.

"The government defines itself as being the “dictator-ship of the proletariat,” contradicting the theory of the withering away of the State until its extinction, and Lenin did not fear declaring that the dictatorship signifies “unlimited power depending on violence and not on law.” He repeated time and again that “the scientific acceptance of the dictatorship is nothing more than a power which can provide no limits, that no law nor absolute rule can restrain, and which is based specifically on violence” (On the History of the Dictatorship, in Lenin's Works, 3rd ed., Moscow [1937], Vol. 25)."

I'm trying to find this online but no luck yet. Fred Bauder 16:47, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, let's start from the beginning: Who wrote the book? If it was published in Moscow in 1937, during the height of Stalin's purges, it might be interesting to cross-reference it with the actual works of Lenin that it is presumably based on. Who knows - perhaps the famous Lenin quote might actually be the result of the stalinist re-writing of history. They had a very prolific "Ministry of Truth", after all. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New list

I don't think a short list of suggestions is POV, especially since some are listed in the main article text. I explicitly noted that it is up to the reader to decide for himself. --Sesel 01:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Big brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution in Libya

The whole international community regarded col.Qaddafi as a dictator and a terrorism sponsor. But in the recent times we start seeing many {so called } democratic countries like Britain and the United States developing strong relationship with their old enemy. In fact since 1969, Qaddafi is the only man in Libya to exercise power and authority, and his evil went far beyond the borders of his country to effect others in different places on earth. His secret police were killing people in the streets and torturing them in prisons in a Stasi manner, his agents bombed an American plane, his front companies manipulated all the resources of his country and turned it into a junkyard, an oil rich country where the salary is 90$ a month. It's really stunning to see Mr. Bush on tv, promoting his war on terror and those who support it, while his representatives regulary visit libya for some unclear reason. Is it the human rights issue? is it the WMD's issue? or is it the Libyan Oil???

So you want Libya to be isolated forever? It is incapable of becoming a democracy, and alternative to Qaddadhi is Islamists, so better to establish good ties with him than remain on bad terms. Oh and Egypt, Jordan etc.. don't have oil and the U.S. has ties with those nations so no, it is not about oil, it is about ensuring that Libya does not remain a nuisance to the outside world.

List of dictators

I'm mentioning this here since it's more likely to be noticed: I've proposed resurrection of the list of dictators at Talk:List of dictators since I have often thought such a list would be useful, and the main objection (controversy over who should be considered a dictator) could easily be overcome by a section for 'disputed dictators' or something to that effect. — Dan | Talk 01:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. "Disputed" section is just invitation to endless revert wars (like the one about Attaturk). My recommendation is to carefully pick few (half a dozen) persons who will be agreed to really belong there. The list should cover wide geography and history. Pavel Vozenilek 18:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why not "mass killers?" instead of "benevolent dictators?"

Any question could be true. But are we trying to insinuate something?. The point is, we don't care about what some people think, we don't want to think, we want to know.

We can not say 'benevolent dictators?", but we can say "dictators who killed thousands" (case of Franco, for example), then people could think what they want to think.

Of course, there is people who think Franco was a good one (I'm spanish, so speak about Franco), but also there is people too who think Hitler was a good one, and people who think the mass killers of the New York Towers did a good job. What do the americans think about an article in wikipedia saying "benevolent suicide terrorist?" talking about them?

I don't want to read in the article "Dictator" Franco regarded as "benevolent dictator?". A person who killed more than one hundred thousand after the civil spanish war (in the 1940s maybe not a lot of people but...) Maybe in another article, "Franco's supporters" or something like.--Cocorota 11:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is Pinochet compared to Tito?

Pinochet being the man that amnesty international blames him for the death of 4000 people (officially 3200 according to Rettig Report) and the torture of 35000 people (official number), the man who won the ficticious elections in 1980 (as there were no voting registries), the man who is in trial today for several assasinations operations (operacion condor, caravana de la muerte, etc), who is in trial for stealing more than 20 million dollars (to then hide them in American Banks). I live in Chile and Pinochet's reputation is in its lowest, he is seen widely as an assasin here and proof of that was that in last year elections none of the rightist candidates even dared to associate the image of Pinochet to them (even though in past elections they were very keen in showing themselves as Pinochet suporters). With all this being sayd, why is Pinochet there?. Pinochet might be hailed as a great leader by people from other countries, right wing pundits or politicians, yet this is not the case in Chile, at least not for the Chile of today.

And your point is what? Tito was far from great himself. He gave autonomy to Kosovo and created the Bosnian state, those actions were highly controversial and have contributed to the Balkan wear in the 90s. But both Pinocher and Tito brought stability to ther countries. Pinochet's economic reforms did better for the country and today Chile is one of the most prosperous in Latin America thanks to his reforms.

State of Awesomeness

I know what they're trying to say here, but considering the fact that it is a page-less link, perhaps we should use something else, lest people of a lower IQ think that it's vandalism. Which, in all honesty, it sounds like.

Self-title

Are there currently actual leaders who hold the ACTUAL title of "Dictator"? as opposed to "president" "Premier", "General Secretary"

I mean especially here in the western world, we call some leaders "dictators", yet they themselves do not hold that title.

69.14.74.155 23:48, 7 June 2007

Define Dictator

What's the difference between dictator and autocrat?

Definition?

"* is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state;"

Is dictator today generally refer to the type of power the roman general had.

As far as I know people generally regard dictator as having extraordinary(not necessarily absolute) power and abuse it. And is widely considered toward those who are very repressive on something generally defined as human rights.

Besides, this is not the Roman Republic era.

"* governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;"

So, when is too far too far when the dictator keeps changing the constitution to fit his rule rather than governing above it.

Hugo Chavez keeps changing constitution and and eventually removed term-limits by not so democratic means.

"* may develop a cult of personality;"

Not always

"* may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical."

From the former "List of Dictators" Maybe be autocratic? As in maybe autocratic and oppressive? Or as in autocratic or oppressive? I'm confused!


There's alot of sources that Do sight Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus as being a dictator, including a reliable source such as "CIA World Factbook". Think they would know more than all of us.

And how do know how the whole government of Belarus works? The U.S. and western Europe weren't even allowed to investigate the elections much less investigate how the government works.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dictator. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Are we missing something?

I've read through the history of this talk page and it seems like a lot was removed? @Guccisamsclub: you've been camping here for awhile. Why is Hitler or other notable individuals not mentioned in this article?--ZiaLater (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I haven't been here that long, but long enough to remember a case where an editor decided to add an interminable and completely unsourced and subjective "list of dictators" to the article (about 70 names). This was removed. But I can't think of anything else. We still have Hitler and Stalin's portraits. If this article ever contained any relevant info about these two, I'm not aware of it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I see some actual information in the article involving Stalin and human rights violations but nothing about Hitler... that's why I thought there could be more missing.--ZiaLater (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, it probably should be added (same could be said for Franco, Suharto etc.) I'm just here to revert undue and unsourced additions: Castro, Erdogan, Chavez, Tito, and so on ad infinitum. Aside from that, I don't really care about this article very much :) . Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guccisamsclub: I can understand the first two. With Castro, I'm on the fence since there are quite a bit of sources, but that can be left for another day. The rest you said are pretty disputed and not worthy of this article as of now, though if I put on my Venezuelan hat, the interest in Maduro's actions is growing. I'll probably update the images on this article since some living individuals featured can be disputed as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Maduro certainly doesn't have a chance in hell of being mentioned in this article. There was a long RfC on Talk:Fidel Castro about applying the "dictator" label to him in Wikipedia's voice, and the answer was a resounding NO. The problem is that any comprehensive and well-sourced list of "all the dictators" is beyond the scope of this article (or any article), while a selective list is WP:UNDUE. You can see in the archives here, that people were having tons of useless discussions about "how bad was leader X," which never went beyond political football. This article could benefit from historical and theoretical studies of the Authoritarian personality and State of emergency in connection with personal dictatorship, but that's a pretty serious undertaking. But if you just want to delete something you feel is controversial, feel free to do so. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guccisamsclub: I know Maduro or anyone after Hitler or Stalin will not be mentioned in this article due to the connections and biases many living people now have to politicians. What I meant earlier is the comparison between Chávez and Maduro, since Maduro seems to be laying down his hand more than Chávez according to sources, which I found interesting. Anyways, I might revisit that Castro discussion and create a new one, it doesn't seem like good arguments were made. It has been some time since his death and the people combing his article have died down, so the bias of users observing may be different. Also, since only Western sources were sought, I could help bring together sources so we can see a more complete picture. And the whole "critics describe him as a dictator"... wouldn't that make anyone who called him a dictator a critic? It kind of makes the whole argument invalid if you use that logic, supporters call him savior, critics dictator. I'll eventually do some digging to see if its worth it, but I don't really have an opinion, though I think that arguments could be better on both sides in that discussion.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Lots of people are described in all sorts of ways by critics. For Castro, yeah it's mainly Western critics who call him a "dictator," usually in op-eds. People who are on the fence may call Cuba a dictatorship, but it's very uncommon for them to call Castro a (personal) dictator. Castro inclusion here — even in "he said, she said" form — would be very undue. These issues were hashed out at length in the epic Castro RfC. You're right about Maduro, but that's a discussion for another page. This page is for only the most famous and uncontroversial examples of dictators. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Benito Mussolini to Dictator. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proletarian Dictatorship

I think the idea of the proletarian dictatorship, and its supposed real life examples (such as the people's democratic dictatorship - a term using in the PRC's constitution) should be mentioned in the modern era section.

theoretical proletarian dictatorship isn't explicitly arbitrary rule, as the term dictator is used today, but a contrast to bourgoisie dictatorship; ie liberal and parliamentary democracy, and itself can contain forms of democracy such as soviet democracy and democratic centralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.66.235 (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

List of Dictators

I see the page has recently acquired a List of dictators. We need to be very careful about this. Some on the list have extended footnote justifying the usage of the term. Most of the recent additions have no such thing. If any of these people are still living we fall into quite serious BLP issues. For now I've added a couple of unsourced section tags. But I think we should look very closely at who should be included, and strike those without good evidence.

It might be worth adding an edit notice for the page to clearly specify the criteria for addition. For now I would call on those adding names to slow down until we have established some criteria. --Salix alba (talk): 20:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been contributing where I can, as I think this is a worthwhile project, so have been trying to ensure additions are well source. I've already removed a couple instances where the term didn't apply. I agree completely about the care we need to take with BLPs, thanks for removing those more egregious additions.
I think establishing a criteria for inclusions would be an important discussion to have, given some of the inclusions on the list tend to toe the line. For example, Juan Perón and Isabel Martínez de Perón are both included, despite the fact that they were both democratically elected by popular vote. They were also both removed by actual military dictatorships - the Revolución Libertadora and National Reorganization Process respectively. Is this really a fair inclusion? Grnrchst (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
If we look back at past discussions on this page we see we have been here before. Quite a good starting point is this proposal by TwinsFan48 (talk · contribs) in 2003.

Each person on the list had to meet at least two of the following criteria:

  • Generally regarded as a dictator (i.e. Hitler)
  • At least three references on the Internet to the person being an "authoritarian" ruler, excluding web sites of opposition parties (i.e. Nujoma)
  • A generally extraconstitutional way of conducting government affairs, including excessive corruption and/or extravagance (i.e. Rene Harris
  • Affiliation with an authoritarian communist or fascist regime (i.e. Mao)
  • A leader who rose to power unconstitutionally and used his power to spread extraconstitutional influence (i.e. Zerbo)
  • Excessively militaristic leader (i.e. Than Shwe)
  • Leaders of personality cults (i.e. Niyazov)
  • Leader of a regime repeatedly cited by international organizations for human rights abuses (i.e. Kim Il Sung)
Not perfect but a starting point. --Salix alba (talk): 22:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing that to my attention. I'm also wondering whether it would be worth splitting the article and creating a separate page for the list of dictators, as this section of the article has ballooned to a size that is starting to outshine the main section of this article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Charles Essie (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Donald Trump (2016-present), United States He officially became a dictator on 11/8/2020 and started his dictator powers on 11/9/2020 71.241.206.183 (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

He stated facts, put him on the list. Rgt2004 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If what they stated were facts, then there should be no problem in contributing some reliable sources that back up this assertion.--Grnrchst (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

New dictator please add her as she was unanimously approved by the government as dictator for life 76.179.26.247 (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not done: not clear who you are referring to. A source to back up the claim is also needed. --Salix alba (talk): 18:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

Rgt2004 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi I noticed Xi Jinping was on the dictator list, I totally disagree with this since the meaning of dictator is someone with absolute power, in which is not the case since what makes decisions in China is the communist party as a whole, not him alone. Furthermore, there’s been no prove of him abusing human rights, since there’s been stated that “re-education camps” are for teaching Mandarin and creating job opportunities. “Re-education camps” where caused by the Turkistan Islamic Party, which are uyghur jihadists, rather than bombing its own country, china used a proper way to get rid of future terrorist attacks. Moreover, there’s been no prove of human right abuses in Xinjiang re-education camps.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Stalin,Castro, and Lenin were not dictators

They weren't the most democratic people either but they definitely weren't dictators,their parties also had a lot of power and I think the central committee could remove them from their place Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! so i don't know why wikipedia consider them as "dictators"... brainwashed by western world.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DF4:3BF:D100:41BC:1EC3:4BCD:8554 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

All three have been described as dictators by numerous scholars. You can find extensive sources in the articles on Vladimir Lenin (Fischer 1964, p. 417; Shub 1966, p. 416; Pipes 1990, p. 511; Pipes 1996, p. 3; Read 2005, p. 247), Joseph Stalin (McCauley 2003, p. 8; Service 2004, p. 52; Montefiore 2007, p. 9; Kotkin 2014, p. xii; Khlevniuk 2015, p. 12; Montefiore 2003, p. 124-125) and Fidel Castro (Bourne 1986, pp. 64–65; Quirk 1993, pp. 37–39; Coltman 2003, pp. 57–62; Von Tunzelmann 2011, p. 44; Sondrol 1991, p. 606) respectively. If you wish to dispute this, them by all means, please bring some verifiable sources to the discussion so that we may form a consensus on the subject. But kindly leave personal insults and preconceived biases at the door.--Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
What personal insults?? I see none. Playing devils advocate here, (as I don't dispute that they - or at the very least, Stalin - were dictators), every source that calls these men "dictator" was more or less written by adversaries to them, in one fashion or another. So this is not something that is ever going to be neutral, if one considers only sources written by adversaries as reliable and those written by allies as unreliable. Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the section List of dictators from the 19th to the 21st century be split into a separate page called List of dictators. The section has now grown large enough to the point of completely overtaking the main body of the article, and would likely be managed better as part of its own specific page. Grnrchst (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalin and lenin are "dictators"?

Says who? the western world? why the f should we believe what the western world says ? none of them were dictators but Heros of world war 2. get you facts straight!

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

A system in America is currently in Turkey. How can someone who has won elections for years be a dictator??? Some of the dictators around the world do not even have a name on this page. CHP is already taking many votes in party elections in Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eray08yigit (talk • contribs) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the content with some sources. - DVdm (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Calvin ?

Should we add Jean Calvin in the list of European dictators ? He was not only an influential theologian but the true ruler of Geneva from 1543 to 1564, making it a "Protestant Rome". And he imposed freedom-killing mesures, like the prohibition of wearing jewels. And he sent some humanists, like Michel Servet on the pyre. HouseTyrell (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that describes him as a dictator? Canterbury Tail talk 14:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
As Canterbury Tail mentioned, this would need a reliable source that describes him as a dictator. But also, this list is specifically about people described as dictators from the 19th century to the 21st century, thus the people listed can be commonly categorized as such, under the modern definition of the term "dictator" as described in the modern era section. While people before the turn of the 19th century have certainly been described as dictators, as they ruled before the rise of modern economic and state systems, they couldn't easily be included under the modern definition of dictator, and would perhaps warrant a separate list.--Grnrchst (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

List of dictators (in-article copy)

While we wait for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators (2nd nomination) to resolve, what should be done with the main list? I feel like the article has too many images as well, which may have the same POV/OR issues. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally its a mess, and there is so much POV here. At a minimum I think every entry should have a reliable source that explicitly describes them as a dictator. Quite a few have a note explaining why they are included but not a source. --Salix alba (talk): 05:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed all the unreferenced entries, if that helps with WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns. Due to the excessive and oddly-placed images, I'll start an RfC on that at this point. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Choice of images

Which images should be included in the article, and where in the source should they be placed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This list is very American perspective centered. Where's Pinochet, Batista, Franco, Mobutu? Stix1776 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dictator/Archive_2&oldid=1136662129"