Talk:List of dictators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Discussions of particular rulers

I am performing a somewhat unusual refactoring/archiving here, but one I believe will make navigation easier. Rather than simply create date based archives that tend not to be examined, I am creating pseudo-archive subpages here to contain the discussions of whether specific individuals should be included in the list. Please feel free to continue the discussion on those individual pages, if needed. The current consensus on inclusion/exclusion is noted next to link.

* Denis Sassou Nguesso of Republic of congo 1979/1994 and 1998-present


Contents


[edit] Omar Bongo

Please discuss his inclusion at /Omar Bongo rather than edit war over adding and removing the name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

...move comment to appropriate subpage

[edit] Disputed

If a specific NPOV dispute exists, rather than merely an exercise in WP:POINT, please list it here. Please list a specific disputed name, not some general conceptual problem with the existence of the list (it alredy survived AfD).

If editors want to stick boxen on the page without describing an actual dispute, this one is probably a better choice:

Some editors really do not like this article. And we mean, really!
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

If a specific NPOV dispute exists, rather than merely an exercise in WP:POINT, please list facts within the article. Please list a specific facts, not some general coneptual definitions.

If editors want to stick boxen on the page without describing an actual dispute, this one is probably a better choice:

Some editors really worship this article. And we mean, really!
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Cheers -- Szvest 11:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki me up™

Now what is the purpose of all that?--MONGO 11:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

To all editors: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Our Aristide POV-warrior

To give him/her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the new editor is just obtuse about the fact the list needs to follow the stated criteria. I don't want to 3RR myself though. Can someone else explain why we have criteria and remove the name unless it is supported at /Jean-Bertrand Aristide? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I like it, but if it comes up for a vote, I'll vote delete...

I just read everything related to this article. The VfD outcome notwithstanding, it does violate NPOV. How far outside the rule of law does one have to govern to be labled a dictator? The answer is subjective. Hosni Mubarak, Robert Mugabe and George W. Bush can all be included or excluded depending on who you ask. Legions of educated people will support both sides of the argument for these men and many others on this list. While the list represents the best efforts of the editors to adhere to the definition of dictator, it is inherrently flawed. If the article's name were changed to "List of Leaders Frequently Referred to as Dictators", this would more closely adhere to NPOV. I think the list is interesting, scholarly and useful. Maybe it could be maintained as an external link (here, for example). If a vote comes up again, I'll vote Delete. Not because I don't like the article; I do like it. It just doesn't adhere to the guidlines. -Gavin 06:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your and so many others' sentiments expressed throughout the talk page history, but feel that some kind of list needs to be maintained. After all, Wikipedia has a Dictator article and sooner rather than later people referring to Wikipedia will look for (or, subsequent to possible AfD removal, will try to create) a list of such figures. Dictator currently begins thus:

"In modern usage, dictator refers to ... [a] ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law."

Is it possible to revise/justify the present list according to those notions of extra-constitutional and rule of law alone and state at the start of the list that these alone are the criteria (to be) used? (Or, as I fear to suspect, even this will prove unmangeable?)
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be wrong. The second criterion of "Absolute ruler of a sovereign state" is very important in distinguishing dictators from other categories of political figures (bandits, warlords, extra-legal "revolutionary councils", etc.). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Would any two of the three criteria "absolute ruler of a sovereign state", "extra or non-constitutional" and/or "outside rule of law" suffice? David Kernow 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a specific two: the "non-constitutional" is not a relevant criterion, the other two are always required for membership. In the USA, and in many of the nations that gained indepedent or changed state form in the 20th century, a Constitution controls rule-of-law. But in other nations, such as Britain, government is not constitutional, but traditional. Well, Britain has a traditional collection of documents sometimes referred to as its constitution, but it's not "unified" in the American sense. I still don't think Tony Blair should get classified as a dictator though. :-)

[edit] Mexico in North America?

Further to a recent edit, is Mexico usually considered to be part of North America? I was under the impression it was part of Central America. Thanks for any insight. David Kernow 02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This was previously discussed in the talk page, and consensus was reached. In any case, my globe still seems to show the bulk of Mexico north of the Central American isthmus. Not that this is criterial, but in political history, Mexico is included in treaties like NAFTA (North American...), because that is standard nomenclature. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. North America it is. David Kernow 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table layout and content

I believe that the tables look better without the center alignment. Of perhaps even greater importance, adding the extra formatting codes probably makes it quite a bit more likely that some editors will put in stray formatting. Thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree. Before reverting it, however, we are being warned that the article is 58 Kb long at present, so I'm wondering whether the notes should be significantly truncated. After all, the information they present ought to be in each dictator's article. Maybe a simple list of the dictatorial methods they use/d is all that's necessary? For example:

Name Country Years in power Methods
Gamal Abel Nasser Egypt 1954-1970 coup, self-appointment
Kwame Nkrumah Ghana 1957-1966 self-declared President for Life, opposition banned

Centering the country and years:

Name Country Years in power Methods
Gamal Abel Nasser Egypt 1954-1970 coup, self-appointment
Kwame Nkrumah Ghana 1957-1966 self-declared President for Life, opposition banned

...and so on. Is there an easier way to set selective centering in class="wikitable" tables? Best wishes, David Kernow 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly with the notion of radically truncating the annotations as a general rule. There are no doubt several that run longer than need be, or contain superfluous information, but we should not aim for overly truncated information in the annotation. Specifically, unlike in some lists, "dictator" is a somewhat subtle concept in political science or political philosophy. It involves both of the two required criteria with specificity. However, the bio of a ruler need not, and often does not, phrase the description in exactly the terms we require for the criteria. So explanation of exactly in what respect, and with what context, a given ruler in fact does fit our criteria. Moreover, in many cases, parts of the context or critera satisfaction are given by external citations.
For example, in the samples you give, none of them provide enough information to determine that the ruler listed actually does fulfill the required list criteria. We need a description that shows the satisfaction of the criteria, which might involve discussing the dates and events during which rule-of-law was suspended; abolute power should probably be given some context with a sentence on the power-structure and state-form in the country. Moreover, though not criterial, indications of specific widespread uses of the "dictator" description are definitely relevant to readers. Overall, we wind up with annotations about the length we have (give or take a little).
If we become concerned with WP:SIZE (which maybe we should, especially if it grows a bit more), a very logical refactoring is to create subpages by continent. That's straightforward, and follows the current section division. Moroever, it's not harder to follow or edit that using the current section headers. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Lulu of the Lotus-Easters; essentially, I agree with your sentiments. It does strike me, however, that there is a significant degree of redundancy in the notes, i.e. the same or very similar phrases occurring again and again. Perhaps the keywords "coup", "self-appointment", etc could refer to some notes/paragraphs outside the table that would enlarge – in a generic way, not for each dictator – on the kinds of subtleties potentially involved. Crucially, whichever keywords used would need to lead to or imply the two criteria you identify, [absolute ruler of a sovereign state] and [outside the rule of law] – assuming, of course, there is a consensus over these criteria. If so, this could be explained in notes or a paragraph preceeding the list. I agree that the external links need to be retained for the reason you give – this was an oversight on my part – and also that "dictator is a somewhat subtle concept in political science or political philosophy"; perhaps, though, we might take the edge off any reaction to a more compact listing by acknowledging this (alongside statements re criteria and keywords) in an opening statement/paragraph.
Best wishes, David Kernow 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea of using some sort of key for commonly repeated explanations. There are indeed a lot of sentences that read almost identically between annotations. Except there would still need to be a bit of detail per figure. But probably, e.g. "coup (1943)" is as good as a full sentence that expands that, especially since the "standard expansion" could be indicated elsewhere on the page. Indeed any keys should relate as closely as possible to the criteria. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on /List of dictators (test format) please, before I start building a legend for the phrases appearing in the Summary column. My intention is that any information removed from the current list's Notes should be placed in the dictators' respective articles, if not already there. Thanks, David Kernow 02:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring for WP:SIZE

David Kernow has expressed a concern with the article size. It is indeed getting slightly on the too large size. My first thought for refactoring was to divide according to continent (presumably by "major continent" rather than subdivisions), which straightforwardly follows the current section headings. However, it also occurs to me that refactoring by dates might be informative (though more initial work). I would probably make this on first year in power <1900, 1900-1950, 1950-.

What do editors think? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nguema (?)

Francisco Macias Nguema declared an atheist state inspred by spanish dictator Francisco Franco? Franco never desclared Spain atheist state, Franco was (nominally) religious. Francesco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.1.9.46 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] NPOV-section Africa

I don't see any dispute stated about that section here. Removing the tag. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More compact listing

Re #Table layout and content and #Refactoring for WP:SIZE above, I've begun a more compact style of list here. Opinions please before I consider implementing it. Thanks, David Kernow 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • While I appreciate David Kernow's effort in making this alternate format, looking at it I find it less useful than the current version with relatively verbose annotations. IMO, if refactoring is desirable for WP:SIZE, breaking down by either date or continent seems more sensible to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If no-one else thinks otherwise, I'm happy for that approach to be taken. Best wishes, David Kernow 05:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current dictators

Right now there is no overview over the current dictators. Should a separate list be made in here or should a new article be made?

I'm for creating separate sections for current and historic in this article. —Nightstallion (?) 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm against that. We already give chronological order. It feels strange to me if, say, a given figure becomes "historical" if they left power last month (but might become current again if the regain power next month; a number of leaders have entered and left power at different times). Even if a given leader dies tomorrow, they were still roughly contemporary, and their influence resonates for an indefinite amount of time. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Lulu. Chronological order is sufficient for this list. Readers can then explore the linked pages for more info (current, not current, etc.) This is just a list. Let's keep it as such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To those who I have offended in the past

I apologize.

[edit] Stalin

Stalin in currently listed under Europe. Shouldn't that be Asia?

Most of the people, and therefore his victims, of the former Soviet Union lived in the European part of the USSR. StarHeart 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Russia is almost universally considered a part of Europe or at least Eurasian. The bulk of Russia's population lives in Europe or in the Urals, methinks. Geographically, a lot of Russia is in Asia, but that's oft overlooked, sad to say. Besides, Stalin was Georgian and Georgia is in Europe HA HA! Oceanhahn 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Someone keeps trying to censor pertinent information from the pages pertaining to dictators. Obviously some one who's a fan. StarHeart 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Leaders

I added the other Soviet leaders (Lenin, Krushchev, Breznev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev), but it screwed up the Europe 'Years in Power' column, so I removed the edit. If someone who knows what he's doing could fix it, I'd be much obliged. User:Spock 16:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not add names that do not meet the criteria stated on the list! It seems extraordinarily unlikely that a plausible case could be made for inclusion of any of these; but if you feel it can be, discuss it on this talk page first (above, in the "discussed figures" area). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hu Jintao =

I wonder why he is in this list. As far as I'm concern there is currently no accusation against his person or his government as President of China. Perhaps we should add Jian Zeming and Deng Xiaoping to the list because they were members of the CCP? Messhermit 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alexander Lukashenko

He hasn't violated any of the conditions stated at the beginning of this list, therefore, it seems safe to presume he does not belong on the list. Elected thrice through popular referendum. The results of these elections have been criticised, but only by traditional opponents. Although some opposition members have been arrested in the past, it has only been during protests, rather than simply for being opposition party members. Oh yeah, that there's an official opposition at all is a pretty good sign as well. I could find no evidence to support the statement that he banned public criticism of himself or his cabinet members. The most recent election was condemned by the OSCE but was considered fair and within norms by the CIS monitors. (Belarusian presidential election, 2006)

I know someone will bring it up, so I'll cover it now: the term "Last Dictator in Europe" is a nickname given to him by respresentatives of certain nations, and is by no means technically accurate. Yes, he is more of an authoritarian, but merely being authoritarian does not a despot make.

Incedentally, many presidents (including the current president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko) wield the power to dismiss a parliament. It's not that special. Nor is the absence of a term limit. Constitutions are fickle things, you know?

Oceanhahn 10:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Internationally considered a dictator, and it's not just a "nickname". Reverted. —Nightstallion (?) 11:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you do any better than that? All you've offered is a blank appeal to popularity. I'm not going to re-revert it straight away, but if that's the only argument to the contrary (that is, why he ought to be left on the list), then I'm going to redelete the entry. I'd also like to know which of the premises at the top of the article he is listed under; I can't figure it out. Oceanhahn 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC) (Ammended: Same day 05:56 PST) Note: I think about ten or twelve hours is long enough...
Redeleted due to lack of solid evidence supporting his presence on the list. If anyone has a good reason to put him back, I think a discussion would be a good idea. --Oceanhahn 22:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Freedom House and the Crisis Group consider him a dictator should be more than enough. —Nightstallion (?) 10:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not. That is an appeal to authority. When I say evidence, I mean some verifiable record of Alexander Lukashenko commiting one of the four criteria required for his presence on this page. I'm talking about a description here, backed up by some citation from a reputable source, not namecalling from some agency or another that is considered by some, perhaps many, to be biased. I've gone to the trouble of tagging this section as being disputed both factually (no evidence sustaining that he's banned public criticism) as well as in terms of neutrality (come on, Freedom House?). PLEASE PROVIDE ACTUAL EVIDENCE, rather than thinktank discussion or political namecalling, false appeals or other logical fallacies. I'm going to wait a while before changing this back because I presume you must have something to say that carries some weight, but making offhand comments reiterated from NGOs won't cut it.
This is also a good time to bring up how close to an edit war/3RR this is coming. Since nobody here wants to see that (I don't, at least), I'll wait and see if someone else can prop up your statements, because as it stands, they have no substance whatsoever, either objectively or logically. --Oceanhahn 11:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Oceanhahn is correct. An appeal to authority is not a legitimate argument. Period. The burden of proof is on you to cite sources specifically, rather than broadly/generally. Things like Freedom House have semi-declared biases, and you may wish to look to other groups for comparison. If Lukashenko's status as a dictator is indeed largely disputed outside of Wikipedia, then he should not be placed on this list, as it endorses that bias. Quite frankly, I think it's enough reason to delete everyone on this list. Edit: Though, if we remove Lukashenko, it becomes apparent that we endorse the idea that he's not a dictator (though if we accept that there's criteria for dictators, then that's not a problem...but even if there is, it'll be subjective...that's a different story though). Which is why I think this list should have been deleted, but that effort failed long ago, it would seem. --Yossarian 11:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Removal of his name does not neccessarily reflect an attitude he is not a dictator; only that there is not enough proof to admit him under the criteria set as terms of 'memberhip' on the list. The criteria are noted at the beginning of the article. It wouldnt be at my behest that the whole list was tossed out, actually, but since that'd been discussed a short while ago, I feel that it could be given a chance, assuming this sort of behaviour (no-proof listings) doesn't continue. --Oceanhahn 12:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Quite right, quite right (on all points). --Yossarian 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with an appeal to authority? That's the whole point of WP:V. Arguing that the authority is wrong without using verifiable sources violates WP:OR. The U.S. State Department, The International Herald Tribune, and BBC call him a dictator, as do French and Canadian press. So does the EU. He uses security forces to "disappear" opponents, and he's shut down human rights activists[2]. For purposes of Wikipedia, he's a dictator regardless, but I also think it's an objectively accurate description. -- FRCP11 12:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Claiming that appeal to authority does not fulfill WP:V is complete and utter nonsense. —Nightstallion (?) 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, FRCP. We've actually gotten somewhere.
For starters, WP:OR has nothing to do with it. WP:V states that the sources must at least be credible, if not neccessarily accurate. Freedom House has been deemed dubious by enough people for it to include a section on it, so I think that it can be safely ignored. The article in Maclean's only calls him a dictator in passing, so I'll set that aside as well, unless I've misread (and I may have; the article was on another topic entirely). Likewise the French article. The American State Department has openly declared itself an enemy of Lukashenko, so I'll leave that be (I have a source or two, but I cant find them at the moment. I'll look it up later.) The EU, via the OSCE, also dismissed the election in 2006 before it was even complete[3]. The only thing in there that lends itself well to your point is the article from the BBC, and it does a fair bit of speculation without establishing much. Closing one NGO because it broke the law is hardly "stifling human rights".
Responding to "what's wrong with appeal to authority", the problem is that it's not an argument; it's just tag-along nonsense that inflates a point without neccessarily understanding it. Just because someone important or famous said something, doesn't mean it's true. What I didn't know is that it doesn't have to be true in the first place, so your point stands on that technicality.
Anyway, the strongest point you made in there was with WP:V, actually, in that it needn't be true to be reported here and treated as such. So if the BBC wants to call him a dictator, I guess Wikipedia will as well. Maybe someone else can illustrate my point better than I can.
Lastly, on a purely literary note, you might consider finding a better word to use than 'disappear' as it sounds quite strange. Also, you can't have an "objectively accurate" dictator, since the term is inherently emotive. --Oceanhahn 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What rule says you have to wait for an unfair election to be over before characterizing it as unfair? Political opponents were harassed, weren't allowed to be placed on ballots, and weren't allowed to participate on television. Russian media is far less credible than Western media, since their reporting is subject to Putin's whims. -- FRCP11 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
mistake on pinochet::

"Chairman of military junta 1973-1974; Supreme Head of the Nation 1974; President of Chile 1974 - 1990. Gained power in a coup; suppressed and exiled opposition; over 3000 "disappearances" and 28,000 tortured."

He was actually president from 80 to 89 (he wasnt president in the 90s, and in the 80s he made rather dubious elections that didnt even had voting registries, BUT, from the 80s thats when he was refered as president). The disappearances are actually around 1200 people, the other 2000 is people who were killed during the dictatorship and count as "kills" as their bodies were found. The recent valech report sets the mark of people who were tortured on one way or another in 35.000, but the goverment cut down that number to 28.000, as there were compensations to be payd to the families and those who were victims. About these reports, for the valech the information is rather accurate, but for the Rettig (the one for the death tolls), that one was made just as well as it could be made, as the militars gave no information whatsoever.

[edit] Iran

Is it appropriate to call Khamenei a dictator, or Khomeini after the early years of the revolution? Consider the criteria.

  1. The Supreme Leader receives his authority from the constitution. His powers are broad but defined, and the president manages day-to-day policy.
  2. Khomeini came to power through a revolution by the Iranian people, not a coup. Khamenei was elected by the Guardian Council.
  3. Khomeini has "father of the republic" status that could arguably be called a personality cult.
  4. I do not doubt that Khomeini was and Khamenei is oppressive.

I've certainly heard more about Iranian presidents since Khomeini's death, but I don't know whether that's because they have actually gained more power, or the US press didn't consider it important. Comments? Gazpacho 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 14:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a name change is in order. I propose shifting the name from List of Dictators to List of Leaders Commonly Referred to as Dictators, in order to make it more neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.12.94 (talk • contribs).

Bad idea, as "commonly" is a weasel word and much work has gone into choosing the criteria here. It's easy to blithely label someone a dictator, not so easy to put forth facts that make him a dictator while other leaders are not. Gazpacho 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Bainimarama

I'm going to remove Frank Bainimarama from the list unless there are objections. To quote the article's introduction Also excluded from this list are those who held absolute power during national emergencies, but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Bainimarama's actions were of dubious legality, but at the same time it was certainly a national emergency and he did restore the rule of law quickly. --RaiderAspect 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove Speight as well, he caused chaos, but he never actually held anything resembling power! --Kieran Bennett 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done both, your right about Speight, he merely led a failed coup. --RaiderAspect 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And Bainimarama's back - this time for good. Joestella 16:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin

This has doubtless been brought up before. However, based on the current criteria, Lenin should be on this list.

is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state;

Dont think anyone will disagree with this.

governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;

Well, in effect there was no rule of law in Russia at the time

commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état;

Yep, October Revolution was damn close to a coup.

may develop a cult of personality;

There was definately a cult of personality around Lenin

may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.

No brainer

Any disagreement? --RaiderAspect 04:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Both February and October revolution were coups, and their main objective was to get rid of a undemocratic regime (first agains the Tsar and later agains the unpopular Kerensky).
  • Lenin did not developed a cult of personality around him; in fact, it tried to encourage the next generation to avoid that. Stalin was the main person behind that.
  • Thus, if we are going to put Lenin here, Kerensky should also be here Messhermit 12:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I would argue Kerensky comes under the absolute-power-in-time-of-crisis exclusion. His government was by definition Provisional and would be replaced as soon as the Constituent Assembly was elected. That said, I wouldn't strongly object to adding him.

Given that the cult of personality is a minor point, I take it you do not disagree with the inclusion of Lenin? --RaiderAspect 00:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, isn't "absolute power in time of crisis" precisely the original definition of "dictator"? That said, I don't think Kerensky fits terribly well, since he was essentially leading weak, tenuous coalition governments that had no real control over the country at large. I would suggest that Lenin's exclusion should be on the basis of the first criterion - Lenin was most certainly not the absolute ruler - he had no autocratic authority over the Bolshevik Party. Otherwise I think Lenin fits the criteria, but I think that's a significant exception. The Bolshevik Party certainly held absolute power in Russia after November 1917 (or, at least, in the parts the Reds controlled), but Lenin did not have absolute power within the Bolshevik Party. He had influence and his opinion was very important to his party colleagues, but he couldn't impose his views against the opposition of the rest of the party. john k 16:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

John, with due respect, while you are right about Lenin not having absolute power over the Bolshevik's in 1917, his treatment of the Workers Opposition and other groups that disagreed with him within the Bolshevik Party in the later 1920's shows the extent of his authority over the Bolsheviks. Similarly the Cheka answered personnally to Lenin rather than to the Sovnarkom or the Central Committee. --RaiderAspect 04:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pahalavi, Zog, et al.

What's the status of semi-royals? The list criteria doesn't fully cover this point. I refer to 20th century kings and emperors who have succeeded a republic in a tumultuous moment, who are not direct descendents in a recent dynasty, and who had a scant royal ancestry or succession. That last bit mostly differentiates, in my opinion, dictatorships from kingships. Using that criteria I'd barely include Zog, and barely exclude Pahlavi. Whatever our decision, I think we may need to add a line to the criteria to delineate this distinction better. -Will Beback

I think monarchs should generally be excluded, but I think in the cases of Zog or Reza Shah, it's hard to say that just because they crowned themselves, they differ substantially from other 20th century dictators. I'm also not sure what to do about monarchs who inherited their thrones, but then established themselves as "royal dictators," overthrowing a constitution or what not, like Alexander I of Yugoslavia or Mohammed Reza Shah. Traditional monarchs certainly shouldn't be included. But I'm not really sure when we get to instances of previously constitutional monarchs overthrowing the constitution and ruling in the same way we expect monarchs to rule. In general, monarchs are either "traditional monarchs," who have never allowed constitutional government, or "constitutional monarchs," who rule within limits set in place by a constitution. But what about monarchs who overthrow a constitution to establish themselves in absolute power? Why is it that if the monarch suspends the constitution and makes his prime minister extra-constitutional ruler (as, for instance, Victor Emmanuel III and George II of Greece did), that prime minister is a dictator, but when a monarch does the same thing and puts himself in power, he does not become a dictator himself? john k 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason is that, when a monarchy is backed by generations of tradition, it's quite difficult to distinguish "overthrowing a constitution" from a valid exercise of royal prerogative. Charles I, in particular, was a master at finding statutory and constitutional "deep magic" that he could use to justify his actions. As a more recent example, Gyanendra repeatedly pointed out that he dissolved parliament and assumed direct power on the advice of his prime minister, and when he reinstated parliament he did so without any constitutional provision authorizing it. However, when someone creates a monarchy out of thin air, there is an objective basis for saying that it is just the evolution of a dictatorship. Gazpacho 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, what about the Balkan monarchies? There was certainly no "deep magic" to justify the actions of, for instance Carol II of Romania, Alexander I of Yugoslavia, and such like. In the former case, the dynasty was an old one, but the country it ruled was relatively recent, and certainly had no tradition of monarchical absolutism on which the monarch was falling back. Charles I is hard to call a dictator because in the 17th century the term "dictator" simply would not make sense when applied to a monarch - "dictator" still implied the Roman Republic. And certainly in some cases it can be quite clear that a monarch is not engaged in a valid exercise of royal prerogative. The English unwritten constitution is quite unusual. In the 20th century, most constitutional monarchies have had clear written constitutions that say specifically what the monarch can and cannot do. Although there will always be ambiguous situations, I think it's fairly clear that if, say, the Queen of Denmark fired her prime minister and established herself as absolute ruler with extraordinary powers, this would not be simply "a valid exercise of royal prerogative", even though Danish monarchs have been absolute rulers in the past. Margrethe would, in such a situation, clearly be a dictator. The situation with the Balkan monarchies in the interwar period is a bit less clear-cut, but Alexander, at least, clearly violated the constitution and established himself as a dictator. And I don't see how the powers of Mussolini, Primo, and Metaxas are any less capable of being seen as due to valid exercise of the royal prerogatives of Victor Emmanuel, Alfonso, and George than the actions of other monarchs on their own behalf. john k 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered Constitutional crisis. There's disagreement on whether Pahlavi abrogated the constitution, but the showdown between him and Mossadegh certainly was a constitutional crisis. How about if I add that article as a related list? Gazpacho 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pahlavi fits all of the descriptions of a dictator in the article. He gained absolute autocratic power when he overthrew a democratically elected government in a coup and later abolished the multiparty system and ruled through a single party state. There were no free elections, independent newspapers were banned and demonstrations were forbidden, he even used helicopter gunships to suppress demonstrators (Black Friday (1978)). He also had a feared and brutal secret police (SAVAK) which he used to kidnap, torture and kill dissidents. Also neither Mohammad Pahlavi nor his father were descendants of royals. They both crowned themselves king and they both gained autocratic power through a coup. --- Melca 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions

The current list is fairly incomplete. Here are a few people I thought might be added.At least some have been discussed before.

There are also two who I suggest be removed from the list

--Nwe 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Duarte is out of the question as far as I'm concerned. —Sesel 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Even for the 1980-82 period?--Nwe 20:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Carlos Salinas de Gortari was democratically elected as President of Mexico, even if some of its political opponents state that it was a fraud. So far, there is no questions regarding it's constitutionality, and the same goes for Gustavo Díaz Ordaz. The fact that some people disagree with the way that they handled politics does not make them (or even suggest) that they were Dictators. That is, their inclusion on this list would be based on political bias. Messhermit 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oliver Cromwell was a dictator in the full meaning of the word, since he was responsible for the overthrown of a legitimate government and the execution of a fully recognized and sovereign head of state. His control over Parliament and the Army and the appointment of his son as successor clearly reinforce this. Messhermit 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, as regards to Cromwell, I agree with you completely that he was the perfect example of a dictator.I'm Irish, by the way,so Oliver Cromwell is the last person I'd want to defend. He did not overthrow a legitimate government, he overthrow an incompetent and corrupt royal dictator, but that's as maybe. I probably should have explained my difficulty with his inclusion; the list is intended for dictators since 1789, Cromwell lived 150 years earlier.
As for the Mexicans, Salinas's election is now almost universally regarded as fraudulent, as were the elections of practically every PRI representative before him. "Some people" is a gross understatement. Technically, calling nearly any recent national ruler a dictator can in some way be seen as political bias, the concern should be whether the description is accurate. The five general guidelines given in the article for establishing someone as a dictator is that he/she:
Salinas and Díaz Ordaz were both, more or less, absolute rulers. They both governed outside the otherwise accepted rule of law, Salinas through his embezzlement and his alleged involvement in murder, Díaz Ordaz through his authoritarian suppression of opposition. Both gained power through fraud. Neither developed any real cult of personality, but then nor did many dictators already listed. Díaz Ordaz, if not Salinas, certainly fits the last guideline.--Nwe 17:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robespierre

The first dictator of the first European republic is curiously excluded from the list. Someone needs to add him.--Secret Agent Man 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Robespierre should absolutely be included. I think I'll add him to my list of suggested addtions.--Nwe 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chavez

I think that Hugo Chavez Frias, "president of Venezuela" should be included in this list. Although, he was elected by popular vote, his presidency has lasted 8 years. The constitution guarantees 6 years only. In addition, he threatens to remain in power for the next 25 years if the elections being held this december are not regulated by Congress (which is heavily occupied by pro-Chavez members, which he, himself appointed). The opposition fears that this will inevitably give power to Chavez through fraudulent elections. unsigned comment by IP User:130.113.193.39

I think that your "although" is the problem in all what you have said. The president of Venezuela is elected by a plurality vote with direct and universal suffrage. The term of office is six years, and a president may be re-elected to a single consecutive term. -- Szvest 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Its encyclopedic my son, not speculative or pundit driven. Hugo Chavez figuring here has a much sense as saying that Bush should be in this page (didnt Bush had accusations of fraudulent vote on both elections?).
I can't stand him myself, but so far he's been nothing but lawfully elected, and it seems he is very popular in Venezuela, so I doubt he cheated his way into office, either. Chavez shouldn't be listed until and unless he remains in power beyond the term limits of his country's Constitution. Jsc1973 08:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Should we make all the notes small?--Antispammer 16:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. I just don't have enough time for that now. -- Szvest 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Done. --Antispammer 23:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Great job! Looks much more better now. -- Szvest 23:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ely Ould Mohamed Vall

According to FayssalF, he is no longer dictator. Anyone else have any input?--Antispammer 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the latest events in Mauritania, many govt's and NGO's are witnessing a shift toward democracy in Mauritania. Have a look at the following links:
See also Politics of Mauritania#August 2005 military coup. -- Szvest 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What we have to do is to put Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya (the former president) on the list of dictators and remove Ely Ould Mohamed Vall from the list as he's preparing the country for a democratic hand-over of power to the nation thru democratic elections soon. Copied from my discussion w/ Antispammer -- Szvest 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

I do not have any expertise on this specific name. But understand that the list criteria and list structure give dates as well as annotations. If a given leader siezed power in 1960 (and meets the other criteria), but transitioned the country to a democratic system in 1970, they should still be listed for the appropriate period. If they were "in power" but not "dictator" for other years, follow the list description: Any years of elected and judicial rule may be indicated parenthetically.. So we might have, e.g.:

Foo Bar | Somewheristan | 1960-1970  | Bar siezed power as a general leading the 1960 coup d'etat.
        |               |(1970-1975) | In 1970 he instituted democratic elections, and was elected
        |               |            | for the first 5 year term, after which he peacefully retired.

LotLE×talk 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added two entries of exactly this type in the form of JJ Rawlings and Obasanjo. The former was dictator who transitioned into an elected president while the latter was dictator and then much later became elected president (and so is a former dictator who is currently in power). MLA 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Is there any other formatting house-keeping that needs to be taken care of?--Antispammer 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest splitting the article up

I came across this because of the AfD on list of dictators currently in power and was somewhat surprised by it. I would suggest that instead of merging other lists of dictators into this one, that it be broken up and split into more manageable articles.

  • List of military rulers
  • List of heads of Communist governments

etc Currently I feel the heavy hand of systemic bias here as the criteria apparently exclude Soviet (ie European) dictators but include every African absolute ruler. The criteria for inclusion in this list are somewhat subjective, they are not the objective form that I would have expected along the lines of a dictator being an un-elected head of administrative government with executive and/or legislative power. The lack of objectivity over criteria such as cult of personality is what I feel leads to the POV additions/removals. I suggest that instead it would be more appropriate to split the dictators apart to hold lists on heads of military governments, heads of communist regimes (which is where there seems to be some dispute about the dictator title despite the Communist political theory of a dictatorship of the proles), leaders who abolished elections while in power, and any others as appropriate. MLA 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A dictatorship is not the same thing as an undemocratic government. Oligarchies, which is what most (but not all) communist regimes have been, do not properly comprise dictatorships. I don't think a "cult of personality" is required, but I think that for a dictatorship one needs to have a single person basically in charge. This just isn't the case for most communist countries. I don't see the need for separate lists, although a list of heads of communist governments separate from this list would be perfectly appropriate. john k 16:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing all other middle east dictators

Last time I checked Abdallah or Mubarak aren't going anywhere until they die. Also, Saudia and so on. Were these ommitted on purpose or is it a process ? Amoruso 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious question

  • Is making decisions on a Federal level without going through a congressional process considered as a dictatorial behaviour ?
  • Is making decisions on a Federal level in contradiction with the Consitution considered as dictatorial behaviour ?
  • If yes, then the list in this article should be longer. All comments very welcome! Thanks Baruch1677 15:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
A dictator is generally a ruler who holds all power of the state in his own person, and is not a traditional monarch (although sometimes traditional monarchs can qualify, arguably). Much as I dislike him, it would be inappropriate to include George W. Bush in this list, if that's what you're getting at. john k 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, GWB has been explicitly discussed above (see relevant subpage of talk). I believe a first brush at an argument can be made that he qualifies for two of the five criteria (though I think even the extra-legal and cult-of-personality probably fail in the end anyway); but no case at all exists for the other three criteria. LotLE×talk 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you john k and LotLE for your answers! I was not suggesting to include anybody. I was just asking precisions about the definition of dictator in the present article. I guess that if a person makes decisions without consulting democratic assemblies, he might be considered more as an oligarch. But all dictators need collaborators to achieve their goals, no dictator holds ALL power in his own person. ;) Baruch1677 17:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In the case of GWB, i see 3 criteria instead of 2, Lulu. -- Szvest 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Baruch, of course no dictator can rule on his own. But the issue is theoretical power at least as much as actual power. If the person is really a "first among equals," as Lenin was, for instance, then they aren't really a dictator. If the person concentrates authority in their own person, and will not brook rivals even within the context of an inner circle of power, as Stalin did, then they are a dictator. john k 19:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for precision. I would further say that not only is the issue theoretical, the definition is also theoretical. And funny enough, a user just modified the article with a pretty precise description of Mr. Bush's dictatorial behaviours before it was reversed by antoher user. Again, I do not advocate adding anybody to the list, I just wanted to question the pertinence of such a list. Baruch1677 09:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limit the list to 1950

Deciding who is a dedictator and who is not is ahistorial and political analysis. This cannot be done except when at least 50 years have passed . that is because secret govermental documentry and men-in-power testimonals will not be released before that .also political reasons make the powerful countries pollute the truth about weaker countries. It is a kind of psychological war and outer pressure on the weak countries.

It is unacceptable to mark the three presidants of Egypt (Gamal AbdelNasser -Mohammed Anwar elSadat -Mohammed Hosny Mubarak ) as dictators . This is peudo.M 3bdelqader 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the list should not include Nicolae Ceausescu or Baby Doc Duvalier or Mobutu Sese Seko? That seems hard to justify. john k 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A dictatorship doesn't say that it's evil, it's simply the obvious form of the government. Mubarak, Abdallah and the various kings of Arabia can't lose their power in democratic procedures. They should all be included . Amoruso 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, please pay attention to the actual criteria though. There might be a case for Mubarak and Abdallah, but the Saudi royals are much more in the nature of an plutocracy or theocracy than a dictatorship. At the least, power is distributed among the royals, not held by a single person. That doesn't make it good, but it does make it outside the scope of this list. LotLE×talk 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I see... Thanks. Amoruso 01:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
We also generally exclude monarchies from the list, don't we? Mubarak seems problematic, as well. Does he really hold all power in himself? Also, Mubarak could theoretically lose power in democratic procedures, he just doesn't because elections are rigged and opposition parties are often (but not necessarily) banned. I'm not sure where that puts him on the dictator scale. He's certainly a strong man, but is every strong man a dictator? It really gets difficult to say at the margins. john k 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's true, the margin is hard to define, but I think it's better to look at the practical and realistic way than the declarative sense. When you can never lose an election, under no cirumstance, then it's a dictatorship IMO. You know there are elections in Syria too. There really are. Amoruso 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A non-democratic government is not the same thing as a dictatorship. Rule by a small committee is generally not considered a dictatorship. john k 00:12, 25 August 2006 (

It is both very arrogant and ignorant to list the three Egyptian presidents as dictators. Learning more and more about the history of intervention and espionage practiced by world powers in the Middle East since World War II, I am personally glad that the presidential election system in Egypt is controlled the way it is. In simple words, the president is elected by members of the legislative body; I think that’s fair and sufficient. The year 2000 US presidential elections clearly demonstrated that not all that glitters is gold. A humble opinion by an Egyptian Canadian in Toronto - Cheers

[edit] Left or Right

Could we include in the table whether they were Left or right leading dictatorships? Apart from the obvious Left - Mao, Stalin and Castro I'm not sure where the others stand.

Err, not really - people can read the individual articles to get a sense of it - but individual dictators can be a lot more nuanced about such things precisely because they're not accountable - and it's going to be hard (since in a lot of cases, I'm sure you can find citations either way) WilyD 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, as you get farther from the Cold War period it becomes more difficult to make that distinction, which was always an oversimplification of each country's politics in the first place. Gazpacho 19:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any others?

OK, I'm going bug-eyed trying to follow some of the discussions re criteria for inclusion here. Can someone please explain why the following are not listed, or at least refer me to the relevant discussions:

Thanks. --SigPig 04:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Pol Pot: Included tentatively, but a source discussing his power over other members of the KR central committee should be added.
  • Piłsudski: He is listed.
  • Ditadura Nacional: This is a list of individuals.
Gazpacho 07:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've changed my mind. If there is a researched source for Pol Pot having absolute control over policy in Democratic Kampuchea, then add him with the source. That he oversaw hundreds of thousands of deaths does not, by itself, place him on this list. Gazpacho 09:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Piłsudski -- missed him because when I used the search feature on my browser, I was searching for "Pilsudski". As for Ditadura Nacional, I realize they are a group. I meant to say, was there a reason the individual dictators were not listed? And thanks for the prompt reply. --SigPig 03:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Pinochet is not in this list ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.45.26 (talk • contribs).

Look closer. Entries are sorted by date. Gazpacho 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
About Pol Pot being supreme ruler of his country, there are so many sources... just a couple: [4] [5]. --Lou Crazy
  1. Neither of those sources addresses to the question of whether Pol Pot had absolute control over policy (as opposed to being one of several idealistic murdering bastards).
  2. Using any source within the US government is problematic, given the longstanding controversy over the culpability of US policymakers in the KR's rise.
  3. There are scholars who have studied the KR in detail. Don't they have anything to say about Pol Pot's degree of control? Gazpacho 23:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. He's always listed as the top person in the party committee. That's enough. Otherwise we'd have to remove all latin american dictators who led a junta, thus sharing part of their responsibility with it.
  2. That's why the first source I mentioned is not from the US and not from a government :-)
  3. If he's the head of the party committee, he's in control. Unless you have sources saying that he was actually attempting to stop the rest of his committee, which kept him in minority... --Lou Crazy 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree with Lou. Mussolini was the head of the Fascist party, so he wasn't a dictator? Pol Pot was the leader of a party so he wasn't a dictator? And, yes, all those south american juntas... Please... =_= --necronudist 09:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! In Italy there was the "Gran Consiglio del Fascismo", which could remove Mussolini from power, and actually did so on July 25, 1943. Still, he was a dictator. --Lou Crazy 14:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want entries listed here based on a limited understanding of the decision-making process. Mussolini personally made the high-level decisions in Italy and boasted about it. Decision-making in Democratic Kampuchea was not so obvious. Gazpacho 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So we should change the name of the entry to "List of boastful dictators" ;-)
On a serious note, while Pol Pot was certainly more secretive than Mussolini, and even hid his own role, it came to light later on. The Pol Pot entry on Wikipedia is quite clear on his responsibilities, and lists various sources. For example, Human Rights Watch lists him as the top echelon of the Khmer Rouge.
--Lou Crazy 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What in the world is going on here? The issue is not necessarily formal structures of power. The issue is who actually makes decisions - whether they are made by a committee or by a single individual. Stalin was a dictator, but Brezhnev was not. Why? Because Stalin kept all important power in his own hands, while in Brezhnev's time the USSR was ruled by a small Politburo elite, all of whom had power, and whom Brezhnev could not afford to ignore. This is the essential issue here. Otherwise it's a list of "titular heads of non-democratic regimes." Which is silly. john k 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Brezhnev wasn't a dictator at the time he first came to power, in 1964. Over time, he came to consolidate more and more power in his hands. By about 1968, when he had marginalized Kosygin, I would say he had become a dictator. Since you mention Stalin, the same applies for him. He won a series of power struggles and became a dictator not in 1924, but in 1928. As for the other Soviet leaders listed, I would concur that were not dictators, but simply the leaders of a small committee that held absolute power.Jsc1973 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nwhoandwhyeutrality

The middle east section is a joke rather than real list of dictators: 1- All Arab dictators submissive to US, are missing. 2- Looking at the list, it only includes the leaders fiercely opposed to Israel. Even though, for example, Khamenei is elected by the representative of the people, and King Abdullah of Jordan is not. --Gerash77 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice call. Well, this article is the best example to teach newcomers (who are nice) and bastards (mainly stupid) what POV is. -- Szvest 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
Khamenei is not a dictator. In general, though, monarchs are not considered dictators, unless they've established "royal dictatorships" in formerly constitutional monarchies, as some Balkan monarchs did in the interwar period. john k 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thousands of people escape the political persecution of King Abdullah II and flee to Europe, Australia, and America. Yet, there are very few Iranians who have permanently fled Iran or want to leave but can't get a visa. Actually, the Iranian demonstrations are not government-organized demonstrations. Oh, yes, Khamenei has no power according to Article 110 Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. He is just a fine, old, bearded person of God. --02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Monarchs who became monarchs through customary succession are generally excluded from this list. There's a link to Category:Monarchs for that. Gazpacho 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will note again that, in my opinion someone like Carol II, or the former Shah of Iran, who overthrew constitutional monarchies and established what were essentially modern-style dictatorships in their countries, should probably be included. Why should prime minister/dictators for traditional monarchs like Mussolini and Primo get included, but monarchs when they do exactly the same thing themselves get excluded? But monarchs whose power is traditional should be excluded. So should ministers of monarchs whose power is traditional. john k 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
By any reasonable measure both Carol and Mohammed Reza Pahlav should be included in the pantheon of world dictators. White Guard 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
PS I've just noticed the said shah is in fact already there. White Guard 02:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Any list of royal dictators should also by rights include Alexander I of Yugoslavia. White Guard 02:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I should have mentioned him as well. He was a more pure dictator than Carol II. john k 11:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, it would be nice if we had an article on royal dictatorship. john k 11:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There should be some clearer explaination of the distinction between "royal dictatorships" and other monarchies. For examlple, Reza Pahlavi might be considered a dictator all the time or just from 1953 onward... where do we draw the line? --Lou Crazy 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A royal dictator, as I suggested before, overthrows an established constitution and takes over direct power in the way that a dictator would. Muhammad Reza Pahlavi became a dictator in 1953. It certainly makes little sense to describe him as a dictator while Mossadegh was his prime minister. Similar, Alexander I of Yugoslavia became a dictator in 1929. I'm less certain of the exact date for Carol II - I think it was in the mid to later 30s, but it's harder to pinpoint precisely. john k 15:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A "royal dictator" is "an absolute ruler of a sovereign state"; which this article says is a requirement for being a dictator. This includes all of Monarchs of the middle east. Although these monarchs might be friendly to the US or Israel, yet they dictate what they seem to be right over the people, including a secular society or relationship with Israel. Including people like Asad, Khomeini and Khamenei, and not the pro-US authoritarian rulers, is ridiculous at best. --Gerash77 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, traditional monarchs are generally not considered dictators. Otherwise we'd have to include Louis XIV and Frederick the Great and so forth, which is silly. "Royal dictators" should only be included if they overthrew constitutional regimes to establish their absolute power. john k 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Traditional forms of royal autocracy and absolutism-all deriving from some legitimate process of succession-should not be confused with modern forms of political dictatorship. In the examples given here the monarchs, it might be said, led 'revolutions from above', in effect overthrowing the forms of constitutional authority established in their countries. You might care to have a look at Alexander's establishment of the 'January 6 Dictatorship' to get a better understanding of this whole process. Likewise Carol II effectively undermined constitutional democracy in his country by a process of political manipulation, the outcome of which was the constitution of February 1938, where the crown was defined as the source of all political authority.White Guard 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
John k, your definition is fine in my opinion. You might expand the introduction of this article to explain it better than it is now. --Lou Crazy 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
John k, your definition works fine for the middle east section in my opinion except that putting Khomeini there according to your definition is questionable. ُThe Iranian constitution who put Khomeini in power, was written by representatives of the people. Hence, Khomeini coming to power can't be considered a coupe. Do we all agree on this? --Gerash77 01:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Khomeni is a difficult case. He obviously came to power in a popular revolution, rather than a 'coup', (so did Hitler for that matter) but his regime was-despite the wide base of support-a dictatorship in every meaningful sense of the term, lacking the checks and balances on executive authority that are an essential feature of constitutional democracy. Most countries, even dictatorships, have constitutions. The real question is what purpose or, to be more exact, whose purpose do they serve? White Guard 01:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, what you call a dictatorship in every meaningful sense of the term, lacking the checks and balances on executive authority is subjective to your POV. The same can be applied to Royal rulers, current and past, which could result in an amazingly long list. For the purpose of this article, John.k proposed to inlcude only those who came to power through illegal means. This can be a basis for providing a neutral POV. Other difinitions would be purely subjective --Gerash77 02:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, quickly, and again. I did not propose to include only those who came to power through illegal means. That would mean excluding Mussolini. What I mean is monarchs are a priori excluded. For a monarch to qualify, they have to act in a way that is comparable to non-monarchical dictators in terms of coming to power through a revolution from above. For non-monarchs, there is no similar limitation. And, at any rate, there is no requirement of an actual coup. If a monarch were voted an Enabling Act in the way that Hitler was, this make him just as much a dictator as staging a coup. john k 11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Subjective (sic) to my POV? Well, no, not really; it's an apt political description of the operation of dictatorship, in all of its forms, and from whatever direction it comes. Constitutions-and the abuse of constitutions-are as modern as dictatorships. Traditional monarchs were not troubled by constitutions in any form, and therefore did not act in unconstitutional ways. Many dictators have come to power by quite legal means; it is then a question of how this power is used. Adolf Hitler had as much popular legitimacy as Khomeni. It may be an uncomfortable though for you, but it is still true notwithstanding. White Guard 03:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I fully underestand your position as to whether monarchs like King of Jordan or KSA should be included in the list or not. If we use your definition (whose purpose do they serve), many of today's rulers may be included in the list, according to one's POV. With regards to Hitler, if we use John.k's definition, then hitler would initially not belong in the list IF he remained in power only a chancellor. HOWEVER, Hitler ILLEGALLY declared the office of President to be permanently vacant, merging it with the office of Chancellor under the title of Leader and Chancellor, making himself Germany's Head of State and Head of government, therefore he belongs to the list.--Gerash77 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hitler certainly belongs on the list of dictators and not because he combined the office of Chancellor and President (that's one I've never heard before!), for which he had the approval of the Nazi Reichstag (and hence more support than he needed to alter the constitution), but because he abolished democracy in Germany, officially a one party state from 14 July 1933. My point is that dictatorship can be established by both legal and illegal means, by election or by an extra parliamentary coup. It's perfectly clear that you are making a sustained and not very subtle attempt to have Khomemi excused from the 'class' of dictators. I'm sorry-it won't work. His regime was dictatorial and he worked in a dictatorial way. That is all that matters. White Guard 07:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I largely agree, although Khomeini is indeed a difficult case. I would say that I'm not completely certain that he qualifies. john k 11:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hitler only abolish democracy after illegally proclaiming himself as the fuhrur. A definition of dictator has yet to be accepted here. You can't base your definition only to include a certain people that you want on the list. That is not logical. Here, you define it as: "abolishing democracy", this might be correct for most people in the list, but not for Khomeini, since he never abolished any democracy.--Gerash77 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you review your history. Hitler abolished democracy in 1933, by getting the Reichstag to pass an Enabling Act which gave him the power to make laws, and by abolishing all opposing political parties and all civil liberties. Hitler only proclaimed himself Führer (perfectly legally, given that he had been given the power to make up whatever laws he wanted) in 1934, after President Hindenburg died. john k 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Although this might be the case, it wouldn't change the argument on Khomeini.--Gerash77 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your argument on Khomeini is wrong, as well. Nobody has ever said that a dictator has to abolish democracy to be a dictator. What was said was the for a monarch to be a dictator they can't simply be a traditional monarch - they have to overthrow some kind of constitutional regime and take power personally. The same restriction does not apply to heads of state or government who are not monarchs. john k 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this correctly: You are saying since the current mideast monarchs are considered Kings and not Leaders, they shouldn't be included in the list - eventhough people like King Fahad of Arabia were not under any sort of checkpoints, and Khomeini was (under assembly of experts)? Thats absurd! --Gerash77 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Your pitch is beginning to sound an awful lot like a POV crusade-sorry I should really say a POV jihad, should I not? White Guard 22:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Hmmm, trying funnies I see... I've heard anti-war crusaders, hippies and pussies, but not a jihadist. I don't mind it though :-) Now could you have a logical backup for not including US backed totalitarian dictators on the list and including populist figures instead, or should i start to put a jihad on the list? --Gerash77 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khamenei and Patchouli

Since User:Patchouli has an intense desire to include Khamenei in the section, and changing Khomeini description, which has resulted in edit war, could he/she explain his/her postition, before editing the section once again? Until a general consensus is reached, I think we should keep the article as it was before his/her edits. --Gerash77 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I kept removing Khamenei because Patchouli didn't provide sources. He's provided them. Gazpacho 02:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not about providing sources. Its about definition of "dictator" for the purpose of this article. See discussions under neutrality.--Gerash77 02:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims that someone meets the definition need to be supported by specific sources. Gazpacho 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources are subjective, you could easily find both POVs on the net. Unless we can come up with a difinition of who could be included in the list, this article might again go through the deletion process. HEnce, a consensus is needed before adding new names.--Gerash77 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality from a judeo-xtian POV, where logic is for hippies and other gawdless sinners :-) Could you or your friends back up that it was Khomeini that forced these upon the people on Iran?

  • Brought sharia to Iran (Yeah, why didn't he brought Gawd's commandments to eye ran?)<People voted for him because Khomeni had promised to bring the oil money to the people. Also, they thought he was a nice, kind, and old religious cleric. People didn't think he would not deliver his promises and screw everyone.>
  • made hijab compulsory (The next thing is putting all Iranian people in the list, because they voted for these.)<*Hijab was made compulsory after they voted for the regime. Most people didn't believe Khomeini would go that far.>
  • and instituted himself as ruler for life. (Its Ok to lie a little on wikipedia, isn't it? after all it wouldn't hurt anyone!)
  • Created VEVAK (putting persian initials is always good thing to create suspense)<Patchouli: Then let us remove SAVAK>
  • and acted as commander-in-chief during the Iran-Iraq War. (ooooooooh what a bad bad thing!)<*Khomeni could have ended the Iran-Iraq war in 1982 after Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, but he continued to fight until 1988 because he wanted an "Islamic Republic of Iraq".>


Reasons for Khamenei is as absurd as the Jesusland itself. Many of these could be used to include American and other administrations as well.

  • Continues Khomeini's Islamist path<Only mullahs can occupy many positions in the government.>
  • uses religion as a tool - (He does? Oh Jesus Christ! I hope bush frees him)
  • cracks down on all authentic dissent - (authentic dissent? approved by torah itself) <Via Ansar-e-Hezbollah and other groups>
  • tortures - (under american laws?!!)<Based on the report of NGOs, Iranian refugees, and other new reports.>
  • and has given orders that permit killings like that of Akbar Mohammadi and Zahra Kazemi. - (and Patchouli issued a rabbinic fatwa here, no question must be asked regarding authenticity of this)
  • Only permitts (sic) government-organized demonstrations. (I didn't know he was the interior minister as well) <Pathchouli: He can dismiss that minister.>
  • Allows a multi-party government but disallows the candidacy of true moderates. - (true moderates like you?! If so, thank gawd for that:-))

--Gerash77 00:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


  • You seem to be caviling. I don't have too much time, but I added some answers that you already know.

--Patchouli 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)| Ali Khamenei|| Iran || 1989-present || Continues Khomeini's Islamist path, cracks down on all authentic dissent[6], torturesHuman Rights overview of Iran[7], and has given orders that permit killings like that of Akbar Mohammadi and Zahra Kazemi. Only permitts government-organized demonstrations.[8][9][10][11][[12][13]ISBN 016074590X

You don't have too much time?!! You are here 24/7 vandalising Iran-related articles (with certain sources, I presume). I hope you eventually get tired of it, because normal people have normal life, and can't play along with your little revert games you seem to be so much in fond of. Good bye --Gerash77 15:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Could everyone please note that Erich Honecker and Leonid Brezhnev are not listed here? These gentlemen are excluded because, while they were the leaders of authoritarian regimes, they themselves did not concentrate all power within the state to themselves - there was a small elite of top communist party officials who shared power. Only a few Communist leaders - Tito and Ceausescu, notably - are actually considered dictators. Why exactly should Khamenei be included, and these gentlemen excluded? Khamenei runs a regime which is actually considerably less authoritarian than the ones these Communist leaders were in charge of. He is clearly not the only power within the state. In both of the last two presidential elections, candidates not particularly close to him have been elected (from different ends of the spectrum, obviously). I'm not sure about Khomeini, but Khamenei is clearly not a dictator by any reasonable standard. john k 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, John, I disagree. While Honecker certainly wasn't as despotic as Stalin he still was a Dictator. Even in times of collective leadership the General secretary was the untouchable supreme authority and in fact could only be removed by conspiracy. If we restrict the definition of Dictator in such a way as you propose I wonder why names like Portugal's Caetano appear. Either way we should be consistent on both left and right. Str1977 (smile back) 08:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto K. Fujimori as Dictator

I have listed Alberto K. Fujimori as dictator as noted in Wiki entry for former President of Peru, previous deletion by User:65.2.107.211 of Alberto Fujimori illustrates POV representation of George W. Bush as a dictator. Bdean, 15 October 2006

Bdean's only purpose in Wikipedia is to portray Alberto Fujimori as "Dictator". A brief analizis of all his editions corroborates this [14]. He has attempted to create a "Dictator" category, violating NPOV rules. Fujimori's inclusion on this list is clearly only based in Bdean's POV.

  • Thank you for your anonymous comments. I urge you to review the Wiki entry on Alberto Fujimori which also notes that Fujimori is on the “list of dictators.” I would be happy to continue to openly discuss the merits of my belief (shared by many respected analysts of Peruvian politics and society) that Alberto K. Fujimori does indeed qualify to be listed as a Dictator. I look forward to your feedback. Bdean, 15 October 2006

It appears that I have walked into the middle of a revert war here. I would like to invoke WP:V instead of WP:NPoV and request that Fujimori only be re-added based on a solid scholarly reference. (Frankly, I'm quite willing to believe that he was every bit as much of a dictator as half the other people on this list; but I would be more comfortable if this were backed by a citation to whatever passes for primary literature in this area.) Michael K. Edwards 06:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Michael K. Edwards, thank you for your constructive intervention. I too believe like you that Alberto Fujimori was, "every bit as much of a dictator as half the other people on this list", to use your words. This perspective is widely documented in the academic, human rights community, and established by international law. Please keep in mind that Fujimori is currently detained in Chile following an INTERPOL detention order. As you will see from a breif review of his current whereabouts, he is awaiting extradition charges against him by the Peruvian Government. As a dedicated Human Rights advocate I firmly believe that Alberto Fujimori has every right to prove his innocence before an internationally recognized court of law. In the meantime, I would be happy to provide you with ample citation information to back my opion that Fujimori deserves to be listed as a dictator prior to re-listing him as a dictator. Regards, Bdean, 19 October 2006
Curious... I found this: [15] Bdean's clear attempt to use Wikipedia for commercial purposes. I also found that Fujimori has the "list of dictators" link because Bdean added him [16]. I wonder who the POV pusher is. Also, Fujimori does not qualify in this list because he does not fulfill the 5 rules... if we use Bdean's scary concept, let's put every single Latin-American president: from Lucio Gutierrez to Fernando Collor de Mello (both accused by their political enemies of being dictators)... let's also include Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva because "some" people believe that he is corrupt. Maybe Bdean is avoiding Alan García, current Peruvian President (responsible for massacres and human right violations - not bother by HR and AI) on purpose? Fujimori's inclusion here is based of Bdean's fanatical, totally partial and narrow-minded POV.
    • Thank you for your anonymous comments. I find your remark regarding my intention to use Wikipedia for Commercial purposes somewhat of a red-herring (I am after all an academic and Human Rights advocate who has no ties whatsoever to commercial enterprise!!). Your comment "I wonder who the POV pusher is" is whimsical and somewhat disingenuous, my academic affiliation is clearly listed on my User Page, while your identity is shrouded in mystery. Moreover, your comments are somewhat misleading in light of the recent Mediation case on the Alberto Fujimori entry, which resulted in the banning of an individual from editing the Wiki entry. I would be happy to continue to openly discuss the merits of my belief (shared by many respected analysts of Peruvian politics and society) that Alberto K. Fujimori does indeed qualify to be listed as a Dictator. In the meantime, I formally request that you desist from personal attacks, which do little to further intelligent, transparent and good faith efforts at resolving intellectual disputes (which in my opinion are healthy, but must be conducted in a civil and tolerant fashion) Thank you again for your comments, I look forward to your feedback. Bdean, 19 October 2006

If I ever create an account, I might self proclaim myself "Emperor of Wikipedia", but that does mean that I'm actually in charge of this. You contradict yourself with your editions, which are nowhere near impartial:

  • You use loaded language and weasel words EVERYWHERE.
  • You only focus on President Fujimori while ignoring that the most barbaric fight took place during the Garcia Presidency... however, you don't say anything about that, even after knowing that he is back in power. I wonder why.
  • Your editions also show that there is not a single critic to Sendero Luminoso or the MRTA. I wonder why in your narrow "Human Rights" definition this is something that only TERRORIST ORGANIZATION have, while the government and military don't.
  • You appeal to ignorance to support your idea that (because no information will ever change your view) he is a dictator.

Not so impartial anymore, right Mr. "I'm a impartial Human Rights Advocate"? Not even HR and AI would approve your arguments. Avoid this please. P.D. Nice try with that straw man. I was expecting that.

Thank you again for your feedback. I will let the historic record speak for itself rather than respond to your personal attacks and unwillingness to engage in open dialogue. For the record, I am not a "Mr.", but rather a "Dr," and yes I have been an active Human Rights advocate for my entire professional life. I look forward to your provocative commentary and impassioned defense of Alberto Fujimori. It is wonderful that Wikipedia has provided us with a democratic forum to express differing points of view--a mechanism that sadly was not available to the majority of Peruvians during Fujimori's authoritarian regime (1990-2000). Regards, User:Bdean1963 20 October 2006

Quite frankly, I'm not interesting in hearing yourself self proclaiming "Dr", "Mr", "President" or "Emperor". Your dispute here with the IP Users is as fruitless as the ongoing debate with Khomeini in this page. If you don't have the info to back up your opinion, then don't post it.
Now, 2 more things:
  • If I'm correct, you claim to be a "Human Rights Advocate". Therefore, you already have a political agenda. Fujimori does not suit your agenda, then you attempt to minimize everything that he did. That is called bias.
  • I lived in Peru during the Fujimori Presidency, and let me tell you that your claim of "Peru not living in Democracy" during those years is indeed a "Straw Man Argument". Your claim is false, because the elections of 1990, 1993, 1995 and 2000 gave Fujimori's opposition chance to oppose his government. If they failed, it was not because of Fujimori. It was because they didn't have anything to offer to the electorate. If the Venezuelan opposition to Hugo Chavez does not participate in the elections that does not turns him into a dictator nor Venezuela into a dictatorship. They simply refuse to participate in the democratic game.
Avoid going all over Wikipedia promoting and spreading your "Human Rights" agenda. Messhermit 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, Messhermit thanks for your feedback--in spite of its vitriolic tone--I appreciate your willingness to discuss Alberto Fujimori and his authoritarian regime. I am sorry that you do not agree with my belief in Amnesty International’s mission which, "is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.” (See Statute of Amnesty International, 27th International Council meeting, 2005). User:Bdean1963 21 October 2006

Ok, this is going nowhere: 1.-Bdean is using words that violate several rules here in Wikipedia, 2.-He does not provides sources for his claims and 3.-Now is stating that he is "preventing" amnesia. Messhermit 02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I find Messhermit's comments ironic in light of our previous editorial disputes (see for example [17]) User:Bdean1963 21 October 2006

I wonder... just reading this dispute we can see that somebody has a political agenda. After all, you don't go around Wikipedia proclaiming yourself as a "Human Rights Advocate"... and proclaiming to have the ultimate word in every single dispute. In reality: this is nothing more than blatant POV pushing. Messhermit 03:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You have already reverted the article 3 times in the same day. One more time and I will have to denounce you for violation of the 3RR. Messhermit 03:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am intrigued that Messhermit is prepared "to denounce [me] for violation of the 3RR" while removing himself from the Alberto Fujimori editing mediation case. Perhaps Messhermit will also be inclined to return to open, civil dialogue in resolving our differing points of view as reflected in our contributions to Wikipedia. User:Bdean1963 21 October 2006

No point in talking with people that promotes only political bias here in Wikipedia. You were warned, you violated the 3RR, and you have being denounced. Avoid playing the victim here, because your editions play against you. Any political aspirations that you may have, they will not succeed here in Wikipedia. Messhermit 03:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened that Messhermit feels that he can not discuss the editing issues with me. Perhaps this is not surprising given the seven edit warnings that lead to Messhermit being banned from editing the Alberto Fujimori entry as well as a request to stop personally attacking me. [18]. Nevertheless I am still hopeful that Messhermit will return to mediation in a good faith effort to try and resolve the differing interpretations of Alberto Fujimori and his role in shaping Peruvian society. Regards,User:Bdean1963 21 October 2006

Messhermit, why do you bother to talk with this narrow minded person? It is more than clear that he is politically motivated, and that his actions respond to a "political agenda". It is also clear who is the POV pusher here.

I was hopeful that Messhermit would in fact re-engage in dialogue. However, as you may have noted Messhermit has withdrawn his willingness to enter in to mediation regarding the Alberto Fujimori editing dispute, which includes, among other issues whether or not Alberto Fujimori was a "dictator." Perhaps you would be willing to take over Messhermit’s impassioned defense of the former President of Peru in the mediation dispute. If so, it would be most helpful if you would sign your posts. In the meantime, thanks for your feedback.--User:Bdean1963 22 October 2006

I simply don't have time to talk with narrow-minded people. Take care Bdean, but rest assures that your campaign to promote your personals opinions here in Wikipedia will not succeed. Messhermit 18:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:Messhermit, to set the record straight, I do not think we have ever spoken personally. I respect your right to your views regarding Fujimori as a public figure, in spite of my own feelings regarding Alberto Fujimori and his dictatorial regime (1990-2000), which left the country bankrupt and bereft of the democratic institutions necessary for governance, particularly in such a culturally diverse nation state as Peru. A brief review of the scholarly community, not to mention national (Peruvian) and international opinion, support my belief that Alberto K. Fujimori should be extradited from Chile to face the rule of law in a Peruvian court. In the meantime, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your views, which I think has indeed generated additional debate, and as such has kept Alberto Fujimori on the international human rights agenda. I look forward to your feedback. Saludos--User:Bdean1963 23 October 2006

[edit] Monarchs

I think we should be clear that monarchs are not a priori excluded. I notice that some months ago, Alexander of Yugoslavia and Carol II of Romania were removed, despite the fact that they were clearly dictators - Alexander actually called his rule after 1929 a "dictatorship".

The issue is not that monarchs are automatically excluded. It is that monarchs are held to a somewhat different standard. Traditional monarchs are excluded. So are constitutional monarchs (obviously). But that doesn't exclude all monarchs. Carol II after 1938, Alexander I after 1929, the Shah after 1953, were none of them traditional monarchs. Although all inherited their thrones, all of their thrones were rather recently established, and all inherited thrones of what were, technically, at least, constitutional monarchies. In the case of Yugoslavia and Romania, the countries had been constitutional monarchies for basically their entire existence. There can be no pretension that Alexander and Carol were bringing back ancient powers of the throne (in the way that, for instance, Charles I did), as there were no ancient powers of the throne in their countries. They took power in exactly the same manner that a dictator would. In similar cases where the monarch, rather than taking power himself, appointed a general or political leader to do the same thing, as Alexander and Carol's contemporaries Alfonso XIII of Spain, Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, and George II of Greece did, we have no trouble naming those figures (Primo, Mussolini, Metaxas) as dictators. When the monarch does the same thing, but takes power personally, he should be considered a dictator.

By these standards, I think we can safely exclude all European monarchies before the 19th century. In the 19th century, most monarchies (save the Bonapartist) are relying on some kind of ancient constitution on which to base their usurpations. Even when they weren't (as, for instance, Austria in the middle years of the century), absolute monarchy was a form of government which was generally expected, so it doesn't make sense to describe these rulers as monarchs.

When we get to the 20th century, it becomes more complicated. The Yugoslavia and Romania issues are pretty clear-cut. I think the Saudi monarchy and probably the Guld monarchies as well can a) be fairly said to be reasonably close to a traditional monarchy, and b) also be said to not constitute dictatorships, in that power is generally held by a tight oligarchy within the ruling family, rather than by the monarch personally. I'm less certain of places like Jordan and Morocco. These countries are technically constitutional monarchies, but the monarch wields a great deal of power - much more than in the kind of "constitutional monarchy" we've come to expect in the 20th century. I'd suggest, though, that their situation is closer to that of Wilhelmine Germany than it is to a royal dictatorship along the lines of Alexander I's (and he is, I think, the paradigmatic case of royal dictatorship).

The Shah, I think, qualifies as following a path relatively similar to that of the Yugoslavian case. I'm not certain of his father, who may also qualify, but I don't really know. The other monarch that comes to mind is King Gyanedra of Nepal, very recently, in that he, like Alexander or Carol or the Shah, (temporarily, in this case) overthrew a constitutional monarchy to establish himself in autocratic power. Beyond those two examples, I'm not really sure what monarchs would qualify. I know very little about the two monarchies in southern Africa. I'm fairly certain that there are no other European examples, with one possible exception - as noted, Alfonso XIII, Victor Emmanuel III, and George II all relied on others to act as dictator on their behalf. Boris III of Bulgaria would be the only other potential case, I think, after 1935 - I'm not familiar enough with the specific case to say for sure if he should be considered a royal dictator like his contemporaries.

At any rate, that's my view here. I'd like to put some notice of "royal dictatorships" into the article text, so as to be clear that all monarchs aren't excluded. john k 18:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of a history of twentieth century dictatorship that did not include Alexander of Yugoslavia and Carol of Romania. Boris III also, I think, deserves mention: he did not create the dictatorship in Bulgaria, but he took on its contours, so to speak. White Guard 23:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iran since the Revolution

It seems to me that it is patently absurd to call Khamenei a dictator. Elections are held in Iran which candidates that Khamenei doesn't like win. He is also not an absolute ruler. Power is shared by an elite. He is the most important member of that elite, but he is not the source of all political power in the way that a dictator is generally considered to be. Furthermore, he is not particularly involved in the day to day running of the government, as far as I am aware. This task is left to the elected president and his ministers. The Supreme Leader exercises a kind of distant, supervisory role, overseeing what goes on, but not directly intervening all that much.

I'm less certain of how things were in Khomeini's day. Certainly he had a great deal more personal prestige than his successor, and had something of a cult of personality. I think it could go either way on that, but I'd like to see more details on the issue. john k 18:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with John's comments on Khamenei. Patchouli, is there some alternative to an endless revert war here? Perhaps a section on "titular leaders of authoritarian elites", including figures like Khamenei and Brezhnev whose personal power is not such that they can reasonably be called dictators but whose administrations satisfy other criteria for a totalitarian regime? Michael K. Edwards 21:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Elections are held in Iran which candidates that Khamenei doesn't like win"??

"Only one problem exists. Khatami is neither a reformer nor a democrat. It is true that Khatami beat three other candidates to win the presidency in 1997. But he emerged to victory only after the mullahs disqualified 234 other challengers whom they felt too reformist or too liberal. Khatami has not retracted his 1980 writings in the Iranian daily Keyhan in which he insisted that government was only for the clergy.Iran’s Myth of Moderation 18 March 2002

Oh, please, don't quote me the National Review. And are you saying that Khatami was Khamenei's chosen candidate? He was obviously minimally acceptable, but he wasn't the Mullahs' choice. john k 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "he is not particularly involved in the day to day running of the government, as far as I am aware."
Article 110 [Leadership Duties and Powers]

(1) Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership:

  • 1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council.
  • 2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.
  • 3. Issuing decrees for national referenda.
  • 4. Assuming supreme command of the Armed Forces.
  • 5. Declaration of war and peace and the mobilization of the Armed Forces.
  • 6. Appointment, dismissal, and resignation of: a. the religious men on the Guardian Council, b. the supreme judicial authority of the country, c. the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran, d. the chief of the joint staff, e. the chief commander of the Isalmic Revolution Guards Corps, and f. the supreme commanders of the Armed Forces.
Yes, but I don't see how that makes one a dictator. The Prime Minister of the UK has the power to do this, more or less. john k 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the Armed Forces and regulation of their relations.
  • 8. Resolving the problems which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council.
  • 9. Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council, and, in the case of the first term of a President, by the Leadership.
  • 10. Dismissal of the President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89. *
Er, this only occurs "after the supreme court holds him guilty of violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence." - i.e., the Supreme Leader does not have the power to unilaterally remove the President. john k 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And, we know how easy it was for Abolhassan Banisadr to be removed. We also remember how fast Ahmadinejad backtracked after his remarks against punishment of women without proper hijab Mahmoud Ahmadinejad#Women's rights.--Patchouli 06:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Banisadr was not removed under Khamenei. I think it's generally agreed that Khomeini had considerably more authority than his successor. john k 12:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • 11. Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation from the Head of judicial power. (2) The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person.

How much more legal power is needed? Controlling all branches of government and the media. In practice, Supreme Leaders have not gone to the United Nations and seldom receive other heads of state.--Patchouli 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see Assembly of Experts. That's a clear and serious check on the Supreme Leader's power. john k 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The point isn't his theoretical power. It's that there are multiple sources of power within the Iranian regime, and that Khamenei doesn't control them all. Once again - no Brezhnev or Honecker. Khamenei's role is, I think, precisely comparable to theirs, except that Iran today is much less autocratic than the Soviet Union or the GDR were. john k 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • How is it less autocratic? Because human rights violations and deprivation of freedoms are in the name of God? So, it is perfectly okay to stone people to death so long as you remember to chant "God is Great"? Give an example of it being less autocratic.--Patchouli 06:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you actually know anything about the Soviet Union? Khatami winning the presidency is a pretty clear example of Iran being less autocratic. I don't want to whitewash Iran, but just to note that late period communist dictatorships were really bad on the authoritarian front. There are meaningful elections in Iran. There were never any meaningful elections in the Soviet Union or GDR. john k 12:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are wrong on elections and didn't specify an example. I have lived my early childhood in Iran and spend some time in Ukraine shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. To me, it seemed the Soviet government was superior to the Islamic Republic — it was superior before the dissolution and after the dissolution.--Patchouli 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khamenei

With near a dozen links and references and widely known facts, some editors want to remove him from the list regardless. Nothing will meet the standards and they totally refuse to do any research.

All the mullahs have ruined Iran and taken it down the tubes. Khamenei bears the chief responsibility. --Patchouli 06:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and added criteria to the preamble by which one can distinguish between a dictatorship and an autocratic oligarchy. In my view, based on the citations you have provided, Iran under Khamenei is an example of the latter. I shall leave it to other editors to strike boldly by adding a table of "titular heads of autocratic oligarchies" or something like that. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Dictator, title of a magistrate in ancient Rome, appointed by the Senate in times of emergency, and ratified by the comitia curiata."

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Simply because of his appointment by the Assembly of Experts and Khomeini, it does not mean he isn't a dictator.--Patchouli 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't the formal method of appointment. It's that all power in the state doesn't derive from him. It's that there are different factions within the regime, and when it all comes out, Khamenei doesn't always get his way. It's that Brezhnev and Honecker aren't on the list either. Please try to have some perspective about this. john k 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to call attention to the fact that the comments column exists precisely so that the criteria at the top can remain simple and grounded in academic consensus, while allowing us to handle individual cases where the basis for the dictator label might require additonal explanation. To be honest, I have sometimes forgotten this myself. I accept Michael's changes as good faith, but we can't start tweaking the criteria to satisfy individual editors' opinions of who should be on the list. Gazpacho 03:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My intent was not to tweak the criteria for dictatorship. My intent was to distinguish between dictatorship and oligarchy and to thus to provide a category for the regimes headed by the likes of Khamenei, Brezhnev, Honecker, Deng Xiaoping, Than Shwe, Yakubu Gowon, and Houari Boumediene Muhammadu Buhari (whoops, pasted wrong name; TTBOMK Buhari's military administration in Nigeria did not have the hallmarks of a personal dictatorship but Boumédienne's in Algeria certainly did after the first couple of years - MKE). Wouldn't that be an improvement over perpetual revert wars? Michael K. Edwards 06:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
For those who missed it, here is my attempt at articulating the distinction:
It is a common, though not universal, feature of dictatorships that the dictator is the head of a ruling elite, and may even observe constitutional forms to the extent of nominally devolving power to a deliberative council over which he presides. In some cases the deliberative council preceded the dictator's rule and remains to some extent the mechanism through which power is exercised. Hence it can be difficult for a contemporary outsider to distinguish between a dictator and the titular head of an autocratic oligarchy, especially when a previous autocrat has established a constitutional system in which the head of state officially controls the composition of the ruling council and holds office for life.
Yet, few historians would characterize Leonid Brezhnev as a dictator on par with Joseph Stalin, whatever the nominal authority of the offices they held. This list attempts to make similar distinctions with respect to contemporary heads of authoritarian states, using three criteria:
  • Is power principally exercised outside the constitutional mechanisms through personal relationships?
  • Are constitutional mechanisms changed arbitrarily to legitimize decisions made personally by the head of state?
  • Does the head of state purge potential rivals from the ruling elite?
These are of course matters of degree, since even the most constitutional of governments give the chief executive some power to select the persons to whom and mechanisms by which to delegate authority; but they are useful tools for achieving consensus on whether a particular authoritarian regime is a dictatorship or an oligarchy.
Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 06:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "the dictator is the head of a ruling elite". Here the ruling elite are mullahs and their stooges.--Patchouli 06:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and with Brezhnev it was the Politburo. What's your point? john k 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Brezhnev could not issue legally binding decrees.--Patchouli 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Friedrich Ebert could issue legally binding decrees. He was not a dictator. By what reasonable standard is Khamenei closer to being a dictator than Brezhnev? You're being completely ridiculous. The basic point is that, since Khomeini's death, Iranian political power has generally fallen to a small group of clerics, of whom Khamenei is merely first among equals. A secondary point is that Iran is only a semi-authoritarian system, with some genuinely democratic features. That's not to say anything very good about the Iranian regime. "Not as bad as Saudi Arabia or the German Democratic Republic" is hardly an endorsement, but it should nevertheless be considered. john k 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, Iran is not democratic and your statement is a lie. Saudi Arabia is much better than Iran because Saudis impose Islam on people but they have also created a welfare state. Iran imposes tyranny and Islam and gives people nothing.--Patchouli 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we seriously have to deal with this person? john k 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The creation of the Special Clerical Court strikes me as a strong piece of evidence for the contention that Khomeini was a dictator and not merely head of state in a totalitarian system. This quote appears to have the facts correct:
"The legitimacy of the Special Clerical Court (SCC) system continues to be a subject of debate. The clerical courts, which were established in 1987 to investigate offenses and crimes committed by clerics, and which are overseen directly by the Supreme Leader, were not provided for in the Constitution, and operated outside the domain of the judiciary. In particular, critics alleged that the clerical courts were used to prosecute certain clerics for expressing controversial ideas and for participating in activities outside the sphere of religion, such as journalism." http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/intro.htm
It's not clear to me whether it's evidence for Khamenei as a dictator, though. Is there evidence that he has personally intervened in the decisions made by the SCC he inherited, or purged the ranks of its judges to substitute his own men?
There is evidence that freedom of the press does not exist, textbooks get screened and manipulated by the government through Supreme Cultural Revolution Council[20] and there is no independent archiving of major events.--Patchouli 18:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really address the question I asked. Work with me here, please. The establishment of the SCC in 1987, accountable only to the Supreme Leader in person, and its use as a kangaroo court for suppression of political dissent well beyond its nominal mandate (in particular, for trials of secular journalists), is authentic evidence for Khomeini as a dictator. It's the sort of thing that may lead reasonable people with no personal experience of his regime to support retention of Khomeini in this list. Can you point me to similar evidence, not that Iran is an unpleasant place to be a dissident (or even an ordinary citizen), nor even that the Council of Guardians is a firmly entrenched reactionary faction at the heart of the political establishment, but that Khamenei personally dominates its decision-making?
SCC is established and Khamenei just has to keep it where it is. 6 members of Guardian Council are picked by the Supreme Leader + 6 more by the judicial branch (selected in turn by the Supreme Leader). You seem to be saying once dictatorship is established, then the successor cannot be considered a dictator.--Patchouli 19:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, but I am saying that in "constitutional dictatorships" such as Iran, the Soviet Union, and (at certain periods) Nigeria, there is a distinction to be made based on the leader's ability and willingness to exercise power against the wishes of his coterie. Even in the most formalist political systems, a written constitution rarely captures the complexity of the channels through which political power is actually exercised. Personally, I think that in cases like Khamenei's (and, for that matter, Kim Jong Il's), where the dictator's position was created by a previous revolutionary leader and inherited by the incumbent with the consent of an oligarchy, it's quite hard for an outsider to tell how firm the incumbent's grasp on the reins is, unless and until he purges a large fraction of his peers or otherwise further centralizes power. Michael K. Edwards 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is tiresome

Patchouli is a POV pushing ideologue who is incapable of constructive contribution to this talk page, and probably to articles as well. He has, throughout this debate, completely failed to engage with the fact that "dictator" is not being treated as the same thing as "bad man in charge of a bad regime". To add insult to injury, he has quoted the National Review as a source to prove his point. Can we do something about this? john k 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So where is the "bad man in charge of a bad regime" list? In its absence, people will conflate the two, whether or not they have a bête noir about a particular entry. Heck, the world still contains plenty of people who will argue that Napoleon was not a dictator on the grounds that he was not a "bad man" and his regime was less bad (for the French, anyway) than its predecessors.
As for myself, I find it hard to maintain a truly NPoV on as intrinsically PoV a subject as a current autocratic regime, successor to a revolutionary theoocracy, which overthrew a repressive autocracy, in a part of the world with little experience of informed consent by the governed. Yet I still think we can do better than a perpetual revert war here if we articulate the distinction to the satisfaction of a reasonable participant and assess individual cases accordingly. One might even learn something in the process; I certainly learned something about Nigerian history when looking for more examples of "titular heads".
Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khamenei, once more

Okay, here are our criteria:

  • is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state;
Khamenei is not an absolute ruler. This is the key basic point as to why he's not a dictator.
He is. Everyone is power is beholden to him including the Assembly of Experts.--Patchouli 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law;
Arguably true, depending on what this means. His role is largely defined within the Constitution, but there do seem to be extra-legal issues.
  • commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état;
This is not true of Khamenei.
  • may develop a cult of personality;
Efforts to develop a cult of personality around Khamenei have been laughable failures.
  • may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.
Oppressive, certainly. Less certain of the rest. At any rate, Khamenei does not fulfill most of the criteria, including the first and most important one. He's not a dictator, and shouldn't be listed here. Evidence that the Iranian regime suppresses freedom of speech or whatever is not evidence that Khamenei is a dictator. And Iran has had freer elections than most countries in the region. john k 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, a quick google search of "Khamenei" and "dictator" fails to turn up any actual reliable sources that call Khamenei a dictator - just Michael Ledeen, some references to an Iranian journalist who was imprisoned for calling Khamenei a dictator, and Khamenei's own page quoting Khomeini talking about why an Islamic Republic is not a dictatorship. john k 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, plus the Internet Movie Database calls him a dictator. john k 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War to end all wars

Find "more standard" and less controverse rules for being called a dictator or delete this list. It's the only solution for all this mess. --necronudist 10:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is better to delete it. Any "Human Rights Advocate" can come up with some twisted definition and add every single president or head of state in the world. Messhermit 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this list is doing reasonably well. We're just getting a little churn from people whose editing history indicates that they are POV-pushing, and from the occasional original researcher (most recently J Intela with pronouncements on who was the first dictator of all time etc.). Gazpacho 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictators left out

I think the following three dictators should be included on the list for the following reasons

  • Cypselus
    1. he overthrew the long established oligarchy-monarchial government of the Greek city state, Corinth to become a tyrant (ancient Greek dictator)
    2. his actions were revolutionary and unprecedented in history
    3. he was the first dictator of all time
  • Julius Caesar
    1. he over through the roman senate in direct violation of the government constitution of Rome
    2. he took power through a military overthrow
    3. their is no longer an independent list of roman dictators and anyway Caesar is the only one of them that would be considered a dictator in the Modern sense of the word
  • Oliver Cromwell
    1. England in the 1600's under king James I Possessed the magna carta and other sets of defined principles of government
      --Only Parliament had the power to approve taxes
      --A monarch would be the executive branch with broad powers
    2. He overthrew of the rump parliament in what would be considered a coup
    3. SO Cromwell would be the first modern dictator.

--J intela 04:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite possibly the worst English spelling I've ever seen. As to the main points, as far as I can understand them - this list doesn't include Greek tyrants, there's a separate article on Roman tyrants, and Cromwell probably should be listed. John Kenney 04:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

J, you're really annoying me. There's a section made for them, it's the one you keep vandalizing at the top of the page. stop it. --necronudist 08:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It says list of Dictatores not list of Modern dictatores

It was "List of modern day dictators" until it was shortened. 24.17.110.207 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atatürk

To add Atatürk in this list of Modern Dictators (whatever that may mean) is wrong in my understanding. Add George W. Bush instead. --katpatuka 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it wrong?

A man whose foto is hanging in EVERY what so ever normal or official office in Turkey for now over 83 years can't be called a dictator. You haven't yet been to Turkey, have you ?! --katpatuka 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, he can... You have to come up with a better argument that that... 惑乱 分からん 15:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ataturk was constitutionally elected four times as President of Turkey. He may have had tremendous power within Turkey, enough to qualify as a dictator, but he was freely given that power, and never abrogated the constitution. A "strongman" perhaps, but not a dictator. Jsc1973 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I just deleted him from the article (added by an anonim). He was the creator of the modern and (not perfect, but somehow) democratic Turkey. --VinceB 14:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello? He is one of the key figures in forming of the modern Turkey, yet is still considered a dictator world wide among political scientist and the academy. Though he may be "benevolent" most of the time, he still had the qualities of a dictator, all of which was cited with examples. So sympathies aside, you must include him in this list, since he resisted parlimentary democracy and remained in power until the day he died (and he died in a palace turned residence). unsigned comment by User:88.224.132.8

Do you have any notable reference citing that? If yes, bring it. If not than please do not add it again. Szvest Wiki me up ® 15:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How notable is "notable" for you? And who specifically am I supposed to persuade? Would Turkish texts do when it comes to "notable"ness? And how do you pick one notable over the other, do you have any notable authority over the subject that -you- can cite?


Here's just an excerpt (in case you cared to google you would see this at the top of your search list query):

http://www.answers.com/topic/mustafa-kemal-atat-rk excerpts (biography net): "...His fifteen years in office were turbulent -- he attempted political and social reforms and emulated the liberal democracies of the West, but as the party leader in a one-party state, he has also been called a DICTATOR (emphasis added)..."

(columbia university press encyclopedia)

"..Although a DICTATOR (emphasis added), Kemal tolerated limited opposition; but he was ruthless toward those he considered extremists..."

and so on...enough? Happy? Genug? unsigned comment by User:88.224.132.8

Please sign your comments so we can follow the discussion. I am not sure if you are a new contributor (if yes than welcome). To answer your question about notability, i'd suggest you have a look at WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Another thing is that Answers.com is just a mirror of other sites. In the case above it is Who2.com!
Now if you have found the above ref to the Columbia university press stuff, then add the stuff with that reference. Szvest Wiki me up ® 15:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josef Tiso (WW2 Slovakia)

The WWII Slovak State was nominally a parliamentary republic and the parliament was not always a obedient voting machine. Its president was not executive position but rather ceremonial one (as in Czechoslovakia). It was the government ministers and cliques who accumulated and struggled for the power. Situation of country was rather better than in its neighbours for early years of the war. The "references" listed are irrelevant and/or off-topic. Pavel Vozenilek 18:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gustav Husák (Czechoslovakia)

This one made me really laughing. Husak reigned over period of watered down version of socialism, interested only in survival of its own and threw away all the ideological fervor and direct violence of the past. Husak himself boasted that he did not re-instituted the brutal methods of 1950's (when he was tortured and sentenced to the death). If he's labeled as dictator I can offer few more and really gruesome. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And did not "crushed" Prague Spring - he was relatively minor politican later picked as a compromise, weak enough to be acceptable for the others. That he stuck for two decades was because the regime feared to make slightest change.
The supression of politics of Prague Sprint was slow and complex struggle between those at power and those who wanted to take up their place. As president he nominally headed secret service (and everything else) but it was ministry of interior and a dedicated department at communist party headquarters who had executive and overseeing role. Pavel Vozenilek 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
And oficially, position of president of Czechoslovakia was purely ceremonial, though in many cases the presidents unoficially had more power. Husak was kind of first among the peers among leadership of communist party (counting some dozen of people) and in 1987 he was quietly ousted by younger (relatively) politicians wishing to grab some power. Pavel Vozenilek 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To label Antonín Novotný (Czechoslovakia) as a dictator is almost equally funny. During his rule the worst excesses of Stalinism were abandoned and early liberalisation attempts were implemented. Pavel Vozenilek 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Entire list

What criteria is being used to label someone a "Dictator" it seems to me you are only adding to suit the needs of the general western and right wing perspective...Lenin wasn't a dictator! And this article itself is simply ludicrous. Why have this article if the entire list is one gigantic POV statement? Why is Napoleon included? Why do I see many leaders without justification...Lenin's justification is extremely simple, as are many more... Dictator is not a formal title, which is why this article has simply no common basis for existing!...Please consider what I am trying to put through...what do you think about George Bush? He represses free speech with articles like the patriot act...He could also be considered a dictator...but why isn't he in this list? Because this article is biased!Kiske 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The new map unfortunately exaggerates the POV of this page even further. It doesn't allow for any discussion - nor counter points of view. To assert that Cuba is currently a dictatorship on the map without discussion is a point of view, not a statement of fact. Many people, whether they are supporters of the Cuban government or not would disagree. Some would point to participation in municipal or national elections since 1992, and the extensive grassroots political process. Add to that the fact that Castro is elected by parliament (the national assembly) which is itself elected by the population, albeit through a referendum single candidate process. Cuba's democracy is in large part weak and woeful, but it is not the role of editors to label a country a dictatorship without attribution nor recourse to NPOV. The map should certainly go as it cannot be NPOV, and I would tend to think that this inherently POV page should be deleted as well.--Zleitzen 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with what you are saying, I already labeled the article as POV, but still there are people who insist on keeping as it is. Dictatorship is purely subjective and as you said there is absolutely no room for manouvering. I am deleting the map! Kiske 18:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be a revert war about the map, I should point out the below section of WP:Neutral Point of View, one of wikipedia's core policies. I believe the map fails to meet the requirements.

WP:NPOV: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Below is a sample of different views which contradict the POV of the map. Some of them may seem disagreeable, I don't believe some of it myelf. But it shows a clear sample of a significant opposing view - which would mean the map in its present state would be unnacceptable. --Zleitzen 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Chapter XIV of the Cuban Constitution describes the electoral sytem of Cuba, including: "All citizens...have the right to take part in the leadership of the state, directly or through their elected representatives..." .
  • Latin American Perspectives article by Donald W. Bray and Marjorie Bray. "The academic and popular discussion of Cuba in the United States mostly misses the key point: the revolution is achieving a new form of democracy based upon shared social goals."
  • In the journal Foreign Affairs May 2006 article titled Left vs. Left in Latin America scholar Jorge G. Castañeda argues that Fidel Castro holds power in Cuba through ongoing popular support: "... the Castroists and Communists all came together -- and they remain together today..."
  • In the book Work and Democracy in Socialist Cuba Linda O. Fuller writes "In contrast to the common image of Cuba as a totalitarian dictatorship, Linda Fuller argues that, as Cuban socialism has matured, important democratic advances also have been made."
  • British political figure and writer Peter Taaffe writes in Cuba:Socialism And Democracy "A planned economy had been established but was there real workers’ democracy in Cuba? What were the international dimensions and the effects of the Cuban Revolution? These issues were hotly debated at the time, and have been a source of constant controversy since."
  • Commitees in solidarity with Latin America & the Caribbean write "Critics continue to say that Cuba is undemocratic, closed off, repressive, and that critical ideas in general are suppressed. An investigation of the education system and the young people in Cuban schools paints a very different picture"
  • From Socialism and Democracy Online "It is clear, however, that Cuba remains committed to its original social and political objectives in crucially important areas such as education, the justice system, health, sports and recreation, and various forms of participatory democracy at the local level."
  • From Globalization And The Developing Countries "Cuba remains a one-party or no-party “representative democracy” that allows a measure of political participation in the selection and election of candidates for public offices, except the presidency."
  • Steve Ludlam, politics professor from the University of Sheffield attends the election of candidates for Cuba’s municipal elections. Descibes his experiences in a piece called "Participation is key to Cuba’s democracy"
  • In an article titled Democracy in Cuba, Teresita Jorge writes: "Cuban elections are an authentic way for people to participate in the life of the nation, far from the politicking, fraud and the marketing of votes that takes place in many countries."
  • On a British website, the journalist Ivan Terrero reports on the Cuban Elections, March 2005, writing in part: "The fact that we are in Cuba, witnessing this full participation by the Cuban people in electing their own leaders from the grassroots, is extremely interesting, and vindicates the significance of the role of the Cuban Revolution,...".
  • The New York based monthly periodical Political Affairs Magazine April 2005 issue includes an article about the Cuban electoral process which states in part: "The upcoming municipal elections, which have been organized every two years since 1976, are scheduled for April 17 and, in cases where it is necessary, a second round takes place on April 24. In order to arrive at the act of voting (secret and non-obligatory)) the electoral process was initiated in January and its most important stage has just concluded (February 24- March 24): the assemblies to nominate candidates for delegates. It is a highly participative process.".
  • US Lawyer and consitutional analyst Tom Crumpacker states in his paper An analysis of democracy, oligarchy and US-Cuba Policy that "(Cuba has) forged a political system that seeks to preserve their sovereignty and independence, with institutions that achieve democracy by participatory consensus rather than class warfare or clashing ideologies."
  • Article titled: The Myth of Cuban Dictatorship by Charles McKelvey, Professor of Sociology, Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina [21] "Cubans tend to enthusiastically defend their (electoral) system. They point out that the elected members of the assemblies are not professional politicians who must rely on fund-raising to be elected"


I removed the map again. I can understand the editor's position, and I commend him/her for the work. Also I respect the attempt to add a disclaimer. However, the map uses this article and wikipedia editors as a reference which isn't really acceptable anywhere on wikipedia. Particularly on a very debatable page such as this. Many of the claims here are unsubstantiated or POV. So I don't think it would be wise to solidify them in graphic form in any fashion. Tables and maps such as this should only be made from certified, uncontested data. Sorry.--Zleitzen 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a cleanup

...and I mean a REALLY thorough cleanup! To begin with it makes no sense to list kings (and queens for that matter) earlier than at least the 18th century in Europe because they were all dictators in the sense that there was no democracy. Democracy didn't become common in Europe before well into the 19th century. Also, how did anyone expect this list not to become a POV mess? MartinDK 20:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I readded the map with a large disclaimer. It was immediately deleted. This is unnecessary. If the list stays on wikipedia, a simple map citing stats directly from that list should stay as well. I won't readd the map on the article page for now but I will add it here so we may discuss it. CL8 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Approximate map of world dictatorships. Dark red represents current dictatorships; light red represents former dictatorships. Claims of dictatorships in Cuba and other nations are controversial. This map merely represents the current (admittedly subjective) List of dictators.
Enlarge
Approximate map of world dictatorships. Dark red represents current dictatorships; light red represents former dictatorships. Claims of dictatorships in Cuba and other nations are controversial. This map merely represents the current (admittedly subjective) List of dictators.

I removed the map again. I can understand your position, and I commend you for the work. Also I respect the attempt to add a disclaimer. However, the map uses this article and wikipedia editors as a reference which isn't really acceptable anywhere on wikipedia. Particularly on a very debatable page such as this. Many of the claims here are unsubstantiated or POV. So I don't think it would be wise to solidify them in graphic form in any fashion. Tables and maps such as this should only be made from certified, uncontested data. Sorry.--Zleitzen 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Being that as we have all agreed, that the entire article is one gigantic POV statement I propose to have the entire article deleted, not just the map. Some of you are right to ask why if the map is only complementing the article should it be the only section deleted. You are right, by logic, if one is deleted then so should the rest. I labeled the article as not representing a worlwide view, so it would be wise to say that because this is an established fact we are obligated, according to wikipedian policies, to delete the entire article. What does everyone think? In the stalin page we fought for weeks until everyone acknowledged that calling him a dictator was POV, so we changed that, so if all this is true, we should delete the article at once. I already brought it up but it was ignored. Kiske 04:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) To give you an example. It is original research to have Iran on the list, and not China. Cuba and not Saudi Arabia etc etc. (To clarify thoughts on your disclaimer Cuba generally is considered a dicatorship in many parts of the world, but there is a significant POV that disagrees with this, rightly or wrongly. Hence the need for NPOV.) --Zleitzen 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But if that's the reason then why is the whole page not deleted? In what way is the map MORE POV than the article? It is not a lone entity. It is on the same page with all the discussion of different points of view. The image caption states that it is controversial and then directs the user to the appropriate place to read differing viewpoints. This discussion and debate is exactly why this page and map should be kept, with appropriate notation. When an article is inherently subjective, the best way to be NPOV is to present all points of view. CL8 01:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Most would agree that the whole page should be deleted. By rights it does not meet basic WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV requirements. However, it seems that when this page has been up for afd, enough editors - either ignorant of policy, naive of how this page will be used, or simply carrying their own agendas - vote for a keep. This means that the encyclopedia is left with an awful unsourced article that will be a perennial battlefield. There is a constant conflict between "no consensus" keep-decisions on afd's and wikipedia policy. This is one such page that exposes the problems. I feel that the map exacerbates the POV issues. An article of original research is one thing, backing that up with a graph is tacitly endorsing the original research. The map is also impossible to maintain. In a weeks time, China may be on the list and Algeria may not be on the list etc etc. Because it is inherently subjective depending on who is editing at the time. --Zleitzen 02:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(UPDATE) You have Algeria on the map. That is not a dictatorship by anyone's reckoning. Tunisia is a multiparty democracy, as is Egypt (though they have corruption issues) they are also listed as dictatorships on the map. --Zleitzen 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't favor the proposed map, but Tunisia and Egypt are dictatorships. —Sesel 02:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Being that as we have all agreed, that the entire article is one gigantic POV statement I propose to have the entire article deleted, not just the map. Some of you are right to ask why if the map is only complementing the article should it be the only section deleted. You are right, by logic, if one is deleted then so should the rest. I labeled the article as not representing a worlwide view, so it would be wise to say that because this is an established fact we are obligated, according to wikipedian policies, to delete the entire article. What does everyone think? In the stalin page we fought for weeks until everyone acknowledged that calling him a dictator was POV, so we changed that, so if all this is true, we should delete the article at once. I already brought it up but it was ignored. Kiske 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiske, please don't lie like that. Everyone did not agree that calling Stalin a dictator was POV. There is no clear agreement about case of Stalin and currently I would say that there is stalemate in Stalin's discussion page.--Staberinde 08:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this logic, Castro (the current president of Cuba) can be listed on this page as a dictator, but showing a MAP of Cuba being under dictatorship is wrong?? Doesn't make any sense to me. I think as long as this page exists the map should be displayed here. By the way, it is a nice map, thanks for making it. I do like this version better than the plain red, it shows more information. Information is good. The machine512 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Map

How about this map...

Countries listed "Not Free" in 2006 by Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization. Full data can be found here: [[1]]
Enlarge
Countries listed "Not Free" in 2006 by Freedom House, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization. Full data can be found here: [[1]]

Opinions welcome! CL8 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but no again. Firstly, "freedom" is not the same as "dictatorship". The map is off topic. Secondly, a number of pages have been spammed with "Freedom House" maps in recent times. This is not good. Freedom House is a US government funded organisation that use a particular definition of "freedom" that is by no means universally agreed. They are not neutral. See Criticism and commentary for more information. To give you an idea of the problem, Freedom House is sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy, a group cited by Cuba as sponsoring acts of aggression against the island [24] and funding Cuban exile terrorist groups [25]. Freedom House's Cuba analyst is a Cuban exile called Frank Calzon, an long time anti-Cuba activist described here as an "anti-Castro zealot" [26]. They are by no means a neutral non-partisan group. I fear that the new map will only add to the sense that this page does not reflect a neutral world view. --Zleitzen 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake. I give up. It seems impossible to add anything to this page without controversy. CL8 03:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, it's not your fault. We can see that your efforts are in good faith. But the page is a bit of a sham to begin with. By setting a precedent of creating such a POV article - everything will be contested. And is, seemingly on a daily basis. As a user notes above, an article such as this can only lead to a "POV mess".--Zleitzen 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is controversial, and one with grey areas. "Freedom" is both qualitative and subjective, and there is no obvious correlation between dictatorship and lack of freedom, so a map like that will inevitably cause controversy. --Ezeu 03:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Being that as we have all agreed, that the entire article is one gigantic POV statement I propose to have the entire article deleted, not just the map. Some of you are right to ask why if the map is only complementing the article should it be the only section deleted. You are right, by logic, if one is deleted then so should the rest. I labeled the article as not representing a worlwide view, so it would be wise to say that because this is an established fact we are obligated, according to wikipedian policies, to delete the entire article. What does everyone think? In the stalin page we fought for weeks until everyone acknowledged that calling him a dictator was POV, so we changed that, so if all this is true, we should delete the article at once. I already brought it up but it was ignored. Kiske 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason this article exists is because Category:Dictators has been repeatedly deleted – consensus is that the label is too subjective, and that there is no clear criteria as to who is a dictator. This article, I guess, has been left to stay as a releaase valve for, and to appease those who believe that there is a clear cut definition of "dictator" that everyone should agree upon. --Ezeu 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. No editor acting in good faith will say that dictator is too subjective to make an article - the problem is that because it's contraversial, and categories don't have citations, a list is better because it allows information to be effectively cited right where the labelling is done. POV warriors can be chased off, don't worry about that. WilyD 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This article should stay. This discussion and debate is exactly why this page and map should be kept, with appropriate notation. When an article is inherently subjective, the best way to be NPOV is to present all points of view. CL8 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No article should be inherently subjective as that would go against the basic wikipedia tenets. Just as no encyclopedia worth its salt would have an article titled List of dictators. It would be dismissed by senior editors for the very reason so many long term wikipedia users, administrators and featured article writers attempted to redirect this page in the past : see examples - [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. WilyD writes, "No editor acting in good faith will say that dictator is too subjective to make an article". Well those editors, and many other good faith editors on the talk page disagree. Besides, there is already an article called dictator --Zleitzen 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. WP:NPOV covers very well how to do with subjective topics (incidentally, almost every topic secretly turns out to be inherently POV and no article survives long term contact with multiple editors without being accused of being massively POV, needing to be deleted, et cetera. It's just a normal part of the edting process. WilyD 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You write "almost every topic secretly turns out to be inherently POV". Not in my experience. Generally articles become more neutral as more reasoned or experienced editors work on an article. Here is NPOV again in case you didn't already see it earlier up the page.

WP:NPOV: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Is labelling Algeria or Iran a dictatorship on a map, or having Alberto Fujimori on a list of dictators asserting that the most popular view is the correct one? Is background provided on who believes what and why? Can we detect bias towards one particular point of view? Is one view given undue weight and presented as truth? Editors are free to answer these questions.--Zleitzen 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • To quote from the start of the article The following is a list of national leaders (heads of state and/or heads of government) commonly regarded as modern dictators. I have been sideswiped by users who came to argue points I would have considered completely uncontraversial - things like How many continents are there? Experienced, honest editors occasionally are tempted to throw in the towel against POV warriors (I can't blame them). You have deftly dodged the real implication of my secretly point of view observation - that almost no topics can't be made into NPOV articles. This article certainly can be made into a NPOV article rather easily and all honest editors acting in good faith can agree to that - the problem is that almost every article will eventually attract editors with a point to push, rather than looking to make a fair article. As for specific examples of dictators - I don't really know the subject very well, and it's not really an area of strong interest to me. This is just an article I watch (mostly for vandals). WilyD 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your point? What has been sideswiped by things like "How many continents are there?" And who has deftly dodged which implications? I simply presented WP:NPOV guidelines, and asked whether this page adheres to these guidelines.--Zleitzen 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I was responding to your assertion You write "almost every topic secretly turns out to be inherently POV". Not in my experience ~ that my claim is in fact accurate - that no article can survive infinitely long without being accused of being POV because it reproduced the cited viewpoints of authorities or what have you. As for whether this article adheres flawlessly to WP:NPOV - I don't know. But it is well cited and (like the rest of Wikipedia) still a work in progress. If a specific entry is unsourced or poorly sourced, bring it up - or WP:Be bold. The idea that this article should be deleted because it's inherently POV is patent non-sense - the same statement can be made (with identical logic) about every single article of Wikipedia. WilyD 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you find the views of numerous experienced editors, admins, featured article writers etc who called for this page to be redirected or deleted in the past to be "patent nonsense". Either a page is inherently POV or it isn't. Inherently POV means that it can never be neutral. Economy of Japan is an article that can be neutral. Dictator is an article that can be neutral. This article can never be neutral. As I recall it was you I argued with on this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism in various countries. Where I believe you simarlarily misunderstood the difference between what is merely POV within an article - and what is inherently POV. Here is a sample from the argument which is pertinent again here.

Well, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If someone wants something cleaned, they can clean it. This article needs cleaning is not a criterion for deletion. Articles shouldn't be brought to AfD just because they're dirty. WilyD 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Comment No, no. I mean that the title of the article itself is flawed - it can only create a page like this. Am I not making myself clear here? The concept of "Anti-Americanism in various countries" itself is a fallacy. I guarantee that this page is unworkable.--Zleitzen 19:03, 7 September 2006

The result? The closing admin deleted the article as inherently POV.--Zleitzen 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Admins can make mistakes - what's your point? State terrorism in the United States was deleted as inherently POV while State terrorism in Sri Lanka and State Terrorism in Syria were kept as not inherently POV. People make nonsense arguments all the time. That an article has to be POV because of it's title is absolutely absurd. Especially for generic titles like List of dictators - would List of people who are often accused to being dictators but we're uncomfortable calling them dictators because that might be POV even though every article is riddled with POV statements that are fine because they're sourcable, in this case we've decided we can't follow the usual procedure used everywhere in Wikipedia because we haven't read farther in WP:NPOV than it's title so we conclude this article in inherently POV when that's easy shown to be nonsense be a better title for an article? No - article titling is often contentious because it cannot capture the whole balance of the article - a title is simply to small to do this. I understand why people worry about the fact that the title cannot capture the entire article, but it cannot and there's nothing we can do except write articles that conform to WP:NPOV - which this article does not do perfectly yet, but which it can do if you're honest about it. WilyD 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The Administrator only complains about the sourcing of the article, not that the article is inherently POV - in fact, his comments (or her comments) strongly imply that such an article can be in compliance with WP:NPOV, as he says Feel free to recreate with sources, but that since the article didn't comply with WP:RS it should be deleted. WilyD 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America was not deleted. You can bandy words around like "absurd" or "nonsense", and ask "what's your point?". My point is clear - this page doesn't meet the WP:NPOV guidelines I presented above. As many other users have noticed. You write "every article is riddled with POV statements" - my answer is that they shouldn't be. You write "article titling is often contentious because it cannot capture the whole balance of the article", sorry but every title should be neutral according to NPOV guidelines. Otherwise the article and title should be fixed. By the way, all the users who have complained about this article before are in line with mainstream encyclopedias, who wouldn't run an article like this. Why? Because it is inherently POV. This is a fairly simple straight forward point, and you are welcome to answer the question. Does this list of dictators assert that the most popular view is the correct one? Is background provided on who believes what and why? Can we detect bias towards one particular point of view? Is one view given undue weight and presented as truth?--Zleitzen 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:NPOV allows and encourages editors to fill articles with NPOV statements - it's fine as long as they express an opinion that's attributable to someone. The article naming convention is that articles are named after what they're called most commonly in English - which leads to stacks of "NPOV names" - precisely because attempts to make flawlessly NPOV article name is a) not require by any policy or guideline, and b) so rediculously impossible it's not worth attempting. FWIW, other encyclopaedia do come out and called people dictators directly - [32] - Encarta calls Mussolini a dictator, for instance. The introduction to that article does some hand wringing about how it's a list of people commonly (but not universally) regarded as dictators. Is that "sufficient"? Does the article need to start with huge blinking fonts drawing people's attention to this? I don't know - I'm not as worried about format as about substance. WilyD 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

Can someone please restore the page against the POV pushing? I've already had to revert it three times, so I really can't again. WilyD 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] organization

i just thought it might be helpful if the article were organized (still grouped by continent) by country and in chronological order for each country, seeing as how many dictatorships set up the next dictatorship, and so on.Thespian946 04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_dictators_4506.html"