Talk:List of dictators/Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Monarchs, dates

Since this article seems doomed to exist, a couple of things. Firstly, while I object to the idea of just generically adding monarchs to the list, I think it's clear that at least some twentieth century monarchs (and perhaps a few 19th century ones, like the two Napoleons, the various kings and emperors of Haiti, and so forth) certainly do belong in this category. I think specifically of those Balkan rulers (Alexander I of Yugoslavia, Carol II of Romania, maybe Boris III of Bulgaria) who are often said to have instituted "royal dictatorships." Another good example would be the last Shah of Iran.

Secondly, I think the date issue is problematic. Personally, I would prefer to remove the date as a separate entity, and instead to indicate important dates in the annotations column. john k 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about the exclusion of monarchs. In least self-declared non-dynastic monarchs seemed to already be acceptable. For example Bokassa. Although I understand exclusing them to a large degree. As counting all monarchs that gave themselves new wider powers would mean including the Prince of Liechtenstein perhaps.--T. Anthony 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the "some monarchs" thing. I think the real issue is whether a figure declared himself a new monarch against a backdrop of prior constitutional government. But that is generally something we can make judgements about (relying on sources like the corresponding articles, of course).

As to the date column: I honestly don't get the concern here. While I quite agree that the annotation of the meaning of different dates (I think John Kenney did a good job of this with Napoleon III, for example), a column to give people a quick sense of what time period is at issue seems very useful. It's nice to see at a glance which person was a ruler in 1870 vs. who was in 1970, without having to read through the narrative description to pick that out. Of course someone who ruled from, e.g. 1930-1950, may have somewhat different type of authority over those two decades: but it's still roughly true that this is a mid-20th C ruler, rather than a late-20th C one or a 19th C one (and seeing that benefits readers) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good deal on removing Lee Kwan Yew. I was tempted to do so myself, but I didn't want to step out of line.--T. Anthony 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictators are monarchs technically; an absolute monarch is a dictator technically. The thing is the usage. A guy like Zogu is called a dictator even though he crowned himself. The Shah is rarely called a dictator since he was dynastic.

I do think the dates should restrain themselves to giving the period as head of state. If it is more complex - that is what the "notes" are for. jucifer 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Shah is frequently called a dictator, because his rule was characterized by the trappings of a modern dictatorship. Furthermore, in 1953 he overthrew a constitutional regime to give himself autocratic power. The same can be said for Carol II of Romania and certainly for Alexander I of Yugoslavia, who were also dynastic rulers. I think any 20th century monarch who overthrew a previously existing constitutional set-up to take rule into their own hands should probably be listed here. This is not the same thing as just increasing monarchical authority. And it would have to be the monarch himself, and not his ministers, who took power. Although governments paying allegiance to Alfonso XIII of Spain, Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, and George II of Greece all overthrew constitutional rule and established dictatorships, it is the prime ministers - Primo, Mussolini, and Metaxas - and not the monarchs themselves, who are considered to be dictators. And monarchs like those of Saudi Arabia or Jordan, who never allowed constitutional government in the first place, probably should not be.

In terms of dates, I see Lulu's point. But I do think the comments field should be clear on the details of it. john k 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with John Kenney that Mohammad Reza Pahlavi should be listed. I'm less knowledgeable about Carol II and Alexander I. But I do not think that dynastic pretensions against a backdrop of prior constitutional rule should exclude a name from being listed. A distinction between constitutional monarchies (usually very limited powers in practice) and monarchies that overturn republics should be made. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)