Talk:List of dictators/GW Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Added some notes

I have added some notes on the Africans (working my way down the list) to provide context. If no source is cited, the info was in the guy's own article on wiki. jucifer 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I think we need to be fairly strict here to avoid POV. I know he's controversial, and I didn't vote for him in the last election, but adding people like George W. Bush is clearly POV-pushing. The 2004 election had international observers and his power is restrained by both the Courts and Constitution. At the very least he's debatable. I took him off, but I think doing things like that jeopardizes the legitimacy of the whole article.--T. Anthony 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree here as well. I dislike W more than I dislike most of the other listed figures, and he's done some dreadful things. But in the main, he has not declared laws autonomously, but rather sent bills to Congress; his regime has still mainly obeyed the courts; for most citizens, procedural due process has been retained. Morever, his election was mostly democratic. Even the 2000 debacle was in a context of overall fair voting among multiple candidates. Even the travesties like the Hamdi case were heard by the courts, and the persecutions have been of a small number of "undesirables" with no real political power. Of course I'm outraged, but it's really a different level of abuse than, e.g. sending Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama to Gitmo.
Notice too that even the awful Patriot Act was passed by the House and Senate, supported by many members of the "loyal opposition" party, has been allowed to undergo challenge in courts, and is written law disclosed to citizens. Stuff like secret warrants with gag order are bad, yes, but those are carried out by bad bureaucracies not at individual orders of the leader. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The notes should start out a list of any formal offices held. This information is very relevant for our understanding of how much the individual flouted the rule of law or what powers he has claimed...

The notes are taking up too much space and should not be in complete sentences. I suggest listing "title (years in parenthesis [this allows us to remove the two sets of dates in some of the entries]); [semicolon] suspended constitution in XXXX, blah blah" --Jiang 09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoe's listing of Bush is a clear and petulant violation of WP:POINT, having failed to have the article deleted. See [1] --84.65.170.16 09:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Lulu, good points, all. People, remember, the word dictator doesn't mean "someone I don't like." Nor does it mean "evil." In theory a person could be a very benevolent dictator, although most are not. Some are certainly "worse" than others. It is a question of how the person obtained and retained power and how her or she governs. Logophile 11:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
That's kinda my point with Joseph Kabila, actually. In my mind at least, he's a "good person" dealing with an almost impossible civil war, and committed to transitioning to real democratic institutions. But for a couple years (2001-3) he did have extra-juridical concentrated authority (in the absence of pre-existing courts and legislature). In contrast, W is a "bad person" who has tried to weaken the democratic institutions that exist, but has succeeded in only relatively small part within a functioning democracy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moratorium on deletions

Please, let's not just delete names; or at least not those names that have existing annotations. If you disagree with the description given, raise it here on the talk page. Some other editor(s) wrote those notes, and felt they motivated the listing of the individual so annotated. It is disrespectful to delete their/our work with a blanket "Not a dictator because I say so" declaration. And it's even worse to bulk delete a whole bunch (apparently randomly selected) with only such a generic comment about them all.

Now obviously, it's possible to argue that some particular person should not be listed. But put a specific comment here. Why do you think the given person was actually legitimately elected?; or what was the limitation of their authority to exclude calling them a dictator?; or what else is flawed in the annotation of a name? Please feel free to do that, even encouraged. But not just arbitray deletion.

As an example, Zoe added George W Bush to the list a couple times. Now in truth, I think she added that with a bit of WP:POINT. But I assumed good faith, and provided a specific description above why I think he should not be included. Moreover, I invited her or other editors to find a reputable and notable source that uses that description, which might merit reinclusion of that name. Let's not be dogmatic about the list in general, but look at each individual name and what can best be described about them. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I will follow your moratorium. However, since there is no NPOV criterion for adding any entry to the column of dictators, I can't argue with Zoe's addition of George W. Bush. It's WP:POINT for sure-- but a point that needs to be made. That's why I stated earlier that I'll relist the AfD unless there is work toward making citing certain sources the criterion for including any individual entry in this list. 172 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You bet it's WP:POINT, as is this entire article. Every single person on this list is a POV addition. Removal of GWB is as much POV as is my inclusion of him. I said on the AfD discussion that I consider Bush a dictator, for his support of the USA PATRIOT act, for his retention of prisoners incommunicado for years on end, for his condoning of torture, for his two bogus elections. Explain how those are not the actions of a dictator. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Most any addition I ever made I used sources from Scholar Google or the individual's own Wiki article. You can dislike Bush or think the Patriot Act is evil. That doesn't change the difficulties Lulu dealt with. And counting Bush when not counting Woodrow Wilson, who had the leading Socialist Eugene V. Debs arrested and enforced the Sedition Act of 1918, or FDR is certainly bias.--T. Anthony 06:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at the current criteria in the intro. We've changed the phrasing a bit as we've shaped up the article and it will probably be tweaked a bit more. But as a guideline, let's compare GWB to the current criteria:
  1. was absolute ruler of a sovereign state,
  2. governed outside the rule of law,
  3. Commonly (but not necessarily), came to power through fraud or coup,
  4. may have developed a cult of personality,
  5. may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic, or tyrannical.
On (1): I've seen no claim at all the GWB is an absolute ruler. Congress, the courts, independent police forces, non-political military staff, etc. all operate. On (2): in a narrow range of cases, presidential directives and determinations of "enemy combatants" etc. could be argued to fall outside the rule of law. But for the most part, the rule of law has held. On (3): An argument could be made that GWB came to power through fraud, but certainly not by coup. FWIW, the fraud was limited in scope, and ratified by the regular judiciary. On (4): Almost certainly yes. On (5): I'd buy oppressive, maybe autocratic. So we have none of the necessary conditions, and a couple of the "common" but non-essential conditions. Moreover, no one has cited non-fringe source using the characterization.
Contrast with other included names. In all such properly included cases, at least (1) and (2) hold. If you believe, in a non-WP:POINT way that some particular name doesn't meet the conditions—or even that the characterization has not been used by non-fringe sources—please present reasons for removal. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
1+2are the definative ones. The others are subordinate, and provide clarification as to how the guy (for they are all guys) was absolute or did subvert the RoL. jucifer 14:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The way I've heard it GWB came to power through fraud...but it was just because someone stuffed up, and not nessecarily desired the outcome. You can also easily say he acts outside international laws (the current fiasco in Iraq for instance). Not being an american Im not sure about the rest, and keep in mind Im no expert on this subject, just doing some random browsing.

[edit] Where's brutal dicatator G. W. Bush? Wikipedia on denial

he helps terrorist and kils innocent iraqi's for oil, sound dictatorlike to me

I do agree he has a fascist manner. Yet, he was elected (!) twice and he has governed without breaking with too many laws. He is just a wannabe and it is not sufficient to include him in this list. José San Martin 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
He wasn't elected, he stole the elections twice!--tequendamia 16:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Where is George Bush the most brutal dictator since Adolf Hitler? Wikipedia is on denial!--tequendamia 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In the whole world. Swedenman 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What a blatantly ignorant remark about Bush. Plenty of other leaders, who are actual dictators (as in Communist China)are perpetually killing and oppressing to this day. Communist China, for example, has in fifty years killed several times the people that America has killed in over two hundred years. I don't support the Iraq War but I don't support pointless whining and bitching that has absolutely no factual support either. Bush's policies in the world are bad, but at least he isn't setting up death camps in his own country. There is NO factual argument supporting the claim that Bush is "the most brutal dictator since Adolf Hitler." Bush's killings compared with Hitler's cannot even be compared in the first place. You could argue at MOST, say, 100,000 deaths with Bush (Although much if not most of the civilian death in Iraq is caused by the insurgency or secterian violence)but the fact still remains that Hitler's MINIMUM is still exponentially greater than that.

 Also, this claim that Bush is "the worst dictator since Adolf Hitler"  is 100% bogus in that a) Bush is obviously NOT a 'dictator', as has been explained already and b)there have been dozens of ACTUAL dictators who are responsible for exponentially more deaths than Bush between Bush's time and Hitler's. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, and other dictators have killed far more people than Bush during the time between Hitler and Bush (Each of those examples listed above is individually personally responsible for more deaths than Bush could ever be argued to be.). These are not opinons; these are incontrovertible facts. Anyone who tries to argue that Bush is close to Hitler, or that he is "the worst dictator since Hitler", had better have some evidence to back it up; but alas, historical fact contradicts them without any doubt. Any assertions that Bush is "the worst dictator since Adolf Hitler!" is nothing short of pure ignorance.

Someone deleted by writeup of Bush in the list of dictators just an hour after the fact. No surprise there.


[edit] Bush

  • Will people stop putting George W Bush in the list of dictators - one report says that he was not elected in 2004 when he actually won 51% of the popular vote and is in no way a dictator; just because you may not like a political leader does not justify putting him or her in a list of dictators and putting it forward as a fact.
  • Well, when you are actively trying to deconstruct the Constitution so you can be a unitary executive and ignore any law congress passes or any judgment that the courts render, that would lend me to believe that Bush is actually a dictator or in the process of becoming one. He may not be a dictator in the sense of a Hussein or Pol Pot, but his actions more than adequately prove he is in the realm of being a dictator. For the record too, I feel I outlined the argument for why Bush should be considered a dictator quite well and cited numerous sources to support my points. Obviously, when his entry gets deleted in such a fashion minutes after posting I have to question the neutrality of those users. For all I know you could be paid Republican shills who want to keep such an idea from becoming prevalent in American society for your own political benefit, calling such an act 'vandalism' when it is clear it is not (it wasn't a LOL BU$H SUX edit by any means so don't get that idea in your head), but rather a serious inquiry to a serious question. I move to dispute the neutrality of this article for this reason, and in addition we should call on unbiased scholars to make an assessment of Bush's current status - meaning not a faceless stranger from the internet but a person, say, who is a qualified Presidential and International Historian.
    • Bush doesn't meet the criteria stated at the top of the article.

1.is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state; 2.governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law; 3.commonly (but not necessarily) gained power through fraud or a coup d'état; 4.may develop a cult of personality; 5.may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.

He is not absolute ruler, he does not govern outside the rule of law, you cannot prove that he gained power through fraud, he doesn't have a cult of personality, and he is by no means autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical..--Antispammer 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkout Glenn Greenwald's work, and a number of others. What we have happening here in this Country (USA) is not an easy phenomenon to nail down. However, if you put together all the actions, all the decisions, all the appointments (one by one) an image of a dictator, emerging gradually from the Constitutional presidency he has inherited, can be discerned. I must say, everyone here has to have some intestinal fortitude to put the facts on the table, and document them. I think this page should be moderated, and older versions of descriptions of GW Bush as dictator should be carefully archived. --Anonymous 19:18 (CDT)

Bush has endeavored to gain additional power throughout the six-plus years that he has been President. However, he is still checked by Congress (which he may well lose control of in the elections coming in a few days), and by the court system, which has ruled against him many times. He may have a cult of personality, but he is also detested by just as many people, including some who voted for him.

He didn't come to power through fraud. In his first election campaign of 2000, he was elected despite not having the most votes. For those of you who don't live in the USA, this can happen lawfully under the rules of our Constitution. It has happened before--in 1824, 1876 and 1888. The first two were bitterly contested and disputed, just as Bush's election was. As for the 2004 election, there's no evidence of widespread fraud, just allegations by "pollsters" who were mad that they called it wrong. That doesn't make Bush a cheater anymore than it made Harry S Truman one in 1948, when the same thing happened.

If you don't like him, fine. I don't like Bush either. It doesn't make him a dictator, though. Jsc1973 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo Chavez

Currently Chavez does not fill all of the criteria neeeded to be classified as a dictator, although there are certainly aspects of his regime that qualify. I expect that if Chavez continues tampering with the constitution, militarising his society, and furthering his cult of personality he could very well end up on this list before too long. This issue may become more clear after the elections this year. Especially if he carries out his threat to rule until 2020....- Aug 21 2006

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_dictators_GW_Bush_20c8.html"