Talk:List of modern day dictators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus reached. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Dictators 2 Define Dictator 3 Revert on 07:43, 25 November 2005 4 Jucifer's spin-off page 5 POV for DELETION 6 Castro 7 Please annotate! 8 Inclusion 9 Skewing AfD vote 10 AFD debate link 11 Gross POV 12 Gross Factual Inaccuracies 13 Let's make this article perfect 14 Modern day 15 Joseph Kabila 16 Date Format? 17 Duplicates 18 Continents 19 Added some notes 20 Jiang's intro 21 Cutoff date 22 Intro 23 Modern day/modern usage 24 FYI 25 Moratorium on deletions

[edit] Dictators

<marquee>I have moved most of this info from a list that combined modern dictators with ancient dictators. That seems unhelpful since these are two different meanings, I feel this is much more elegant. jucifer 15:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)</marquee>

• I failed to notice that for the ancient usage, the list was allready included on the Roman dictator page. jucifer 15:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical here is the definition of the word.

Some definitions:

• Compact OED - dictator • noun a ruler with total power over a country.

• Cambridge - a leader who has complete power in a country and has not been elected by the people

• MSN - 1. politics; powerful ruler: a leader who rules a country with absolute power, usually by force

• Marrian-Webster's - b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

• Wordsmyth - 1. a ruler who has supreme and total authority, esp. one who has seized power or who uses it harshly or selfishly.

• American Heritage - An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.

• Columbia Encyclopedia (2001) - Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office by legal means and once in power overthrew constitutional restraints.

• Wordnet - 2. dictator, potentate -- (a ruler who is unconstrained by law)

I propose the following definition based on the above:

A powerful/absolute ruler unconstrained by the rule of law. Exclusions for a) royalty (since they are not the intent of the word); b) those who ruled as dictators during emergencies and restored the rule of law.

jucifer 16:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

All these are wishy-washy one-liners, not watertight definitions. By all of these measures, Mswati III fits. Does he belong on this list ? I do not think so. Are you going to add Monarchs need not apply ? Can I add a few things as well ? Wizzy…☎ 15:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think monarchs need not apply. :-) I agree, Mswati III should not be here. He should be on a list of [monarchs] IMHO. Go ahead and add, who am I after all?jucifer 16:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the definition of Dictator falls at the first post. Can we scrap this list ? Wizzy…☎ 16:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that it does. Dictators + dictatorships of various kinds are discussed and even listed in many places around wiki. That all presupposes an objective definition of some kind. How do you feel about my proposed definition above? How would you prefer to define dictator?jucifer 16:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As you are aware, I am not in favour of keeping either this list or List of dictators. I could add something about being elected (not much referenced in the one-liners above), and possibly the absence of a Junta (the collective Dictator). But (to keep it simple) how am I going to justify this to the disenfranchised in Swaziland or Zimbabwe ? Revert ? Do you think a dispossessed Zimbabwean is going to compromise on the Talk page ? No, it will be a long battle without end.

This is not a fresh discussion. It is a continuation of the (painful) discussion on Talk:List of dictators. I think JK had some valid points there, as did 172. I have two outstanding questions on Talk:List of dictators that you have not replied to. I am picking examples (Mswati, Mugabe, both adjoining South Africa, where I live) to try to cut to the chase, and demonstrate the futility of such lists (or Categories, which I think are better than Lists). There was Category:Totalitarian Dictators that was recently voted down, for all the same reasons thrashed out on Talk:List of dictators. Wizzy…☎ 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I know your general opinion here. I have responded to your points and will so again. But, can we please agree on a definition of a dictator and work from there. Even if you want the page deleted you must still agree that dictator must be definable.
  • As I wrote above Mswati is not a dictator according to the proposed definition since he is royalty - one of the proposed exclusions.
  • Mugabe appears to indeed be a dictator at present, though this was not always the case. By the proposed definition he would be on the list. Perhaps you feel the definition should exclude those who have not been dictators exclusively? Feel free to suggest as much.
• Being unelected is not a defining characteristic of a dictator - it is a common characteristic as Cambridge and Columbia note above. "Ruling by force" "oppressive" "harsh" are similar features but they are not defining ones. You can certainly have an elected dictator - usually someone who is legally elected and uses their new power to subvert the rule of law. There have been many such examples like this universally accepted as dictators - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco stand out. At the same time, others who are described as dictators even by their own supporters have not been democratically elected e.g. Pinochet, Castro, Amin. This further shows that democracy is not a defining feature of a dictator.
• I have conducted some Google research! this search (excludes "roman") showing over 27,000 uses of the word in English wikipedia, going through, you will note many names described as dictators. I see no reason why those names should not be collated here. Furthermore, it shows that dictator is a clearly defined and uncontroversial word. However, I agree that getting a solid definition is a good idea for this article and for wiki in general.
• How would you define the word Dictator? Please can we keep this discussion focused on this one central question.jucifer 20:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Define Dictator

Jucifer, even if we agreed between us what a Dictator is, we cannot set the rules for what a Wikipedia Dictator is. Every new contributor, seeking to add their own Bete noir, would contest the definition until their candidate could be added. There would be pages of discussion as to exactly why royalty is not included, and if African Royalty really counts, and surely it is just about unfettered power, blah blah. I cannot defend not adding Mswati because he is royalty. I cannot defend removing Mugabe because he was elected. I have better things to do on Wikipedia. But it bothers me that such a page exists, chock full of POV. Wizzy…☎ 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jucifer, the creation of this spin off article may appaear to be an attempt to avoid engaging in the arguments against classifying historical figures on the basis of the original research of Wikipedia editors on Talk:List of dictators. While this may not be your intent, your arguments and proposals will be accorded much more consideration if you instead foster the impression that you are interested in and capable of addressing or recognizing the problems posted by creating this list noted over the past few years. 172 07:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I pointed out, dictator in the modern sense is used 27,000 times across wikipedia to describe various people. It is a word used universally by the public, the media, politicians, historians to describe some national leaders. Definitions of the word are very clear as to what is means.
• We assume good faith on the part of Wiki contributors in general. If people add names on which there is no consensus they will be removed. Please see the discussion on Talk:Daniel Brandt for a similar case. There, indeed, there is risk of users adding libelous info not just bad/POV info - yet the page twice received resounding AfD Keeps - 22-1 and c.35-2. The potential for vandalism and POV is not a justification for deletion - as this would apply to every page-including talk-pages!
• There may be discussion of why royalty is not included (although I feel that I have adequately addressed this question above), but that's fine because this is wikipedia and discussion is good. I am sure that if you see what you are saying here you will realise the problem: "Question leads to discussion" therefore "No question leads to no discussion" - this is the opposite of what wiki is about.
• You justify deleting the page since if it stayed you would have to debate with people about what stays and what goes and you basically can't be bothered. If you delete the page - implying that there are no dictators - you save yourself the bother of having to debate the matter with the hoi polloi. Well, I'm sorry, your time is no more important that that of any other wikipedian. This I presume is your real reason for wanting to delete this page and motivates the various logical knots that you are tied in.
• No I created this page because I felt that it more appropriate to split the article, please assume good faith on my part. In fact I hoped that as a corollary benefit, the debate would take more useful tone. To suggest that I did this to avoid debate is not valid since I informed you of what I was doing, and you did not object to it in principle anyhow.
• There is no justification for you blanking this page - even if you think your reasons are sound. Furthermore REDIRECTING a page that you want to delete is something that requires an AfD. Also, there is an ongoing discussion on this talk page - and there is no consensus. It is inappropriate to delete a page under such circumstances - especially when you are a party to the debate. I am a good faith user, not a vandal, therefore until there is consensus or AfD, blanking this page is an action I graciously ask you to refrain from.
• I have gone through the arguments you have put forward for the removal of the old (and inferior IMHO) article. I counted four and I summarised them for you there - and responded to each one in turn - including your repeated assertion that describing someone as a dictator (presumably anyone, since you want the entire list gone) violates WP:NOR.
• Again I request that we come to some agreed interim consensus on how we define dictator. Below is my proposal (from above), how would you improve on this definition?

A powerful/absolute ruler unconstrained by the rule of law. Exclusions for a) royalty (since they are not the intent of the word); b) those who ruled as dictators during emergencies and restored the rule of law.jucifer 14:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are asking me to do Original Research. You have added some of your own (no monarchs). Wizzy…☎ 10:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia a dictator a dictator is defined as one who exercises total unilateral control of a country without regard for the founding documents and laws of the country. Such a person either (a) disbands the legislature, (b) disregards it, or (c) controls it. Such a person may be either (a) unelected, (b) initially elected but kept in office by canceling elections or refusing to hold them, or (c) continually re-elected by prohibiting opposition or by somehow silencing the opposition. Such a person may or may not be guilty of human rights abuses and/or of financial corruption. Such a person may or may not be perceived as malevolent. It is a good, objective, NPOV definition. I think that by using these criteria this list could be maintained. I think definitely that it should be kept. Logophile 15:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on 07:43, 25 November 2005

172, regarding my edit description: (rv edit by 172 to prior version by Juicifer | #redir causes sig data loss) and your question "Talk:List of dictators. btw, i am not what the point about sig data loss in the last edit means"

This article is a List, to make fingind other articles easy. I am NOT here to debate the merits of the list; but your changing this to a #REDIR caused a signifigant loss of data in that the article you were redirecting this one to did not contain the information that you were effectively deleting, prior to removing large ammounts of information, a consensus would be helpful. Xaosflux 13:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jucifer's spin-off page

The article has been put on VfD. In the meantime, I will not respond to you on this talk page, which is a personal spinoff disconnected from the long and ongoing discussion regarding the creation of such a list along the exact same lines on Talk:List of dictators, which is where I will be replying to you. 172 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV for DELETION

I think it is inherently POV to suggest that the list should be deleted. It seems to reflect somebody's bias that the term dictator should not be applied to anyone. Of if not that, it seems to reflect the POV that the term is too fuzzy to be useful. Deleting the list would allow this POV to become enacted, and thus violate the spirit and policy of Wikipedia. Just about every article on politics and religion would have to be deleted, if we took disagreements about terminology and application of terminology as criteria for deletion. Logophile 02:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castro

I think this is a good example of how this page can work, if suitably maintained. I personally think it's quite silly to call Castro a dictator. But nonetheless, the characterization really is widespread, and the use of the description easily meets WP:V. Moreover, even the ideological claims are not completely without a basis; Castro has a fairly large degree of centralized control, and there are some personalistic elements in the rule of Cuba. Given that this is a list (not a category), we can include all of that (in suitably encyclopedic form). Let readers see what claims have been made, who makes them, what the general basis for claims is, and so on.

A list need not, and should not, be a simple bare collection of names that are advanced as uniformly consistent. Instead, annotations can give plenty of context on the respect in which a given individual is candidate for this list, including any reservations other sources might have on the categorization. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please annotate!

The only real value of a list like this is in the annotations it can provide. Removing or commenting out such annotations entirely defeats any possibility of contextualizing the inclusions in a non-POV way. No leader is unambiguously a dictator (and few unambiguously not so), but letting us know the sense involved, who says it, what limitations or context applies, etc. lets the list have some value. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop inserting blatantly inaccurate POV material on this list. Thank you. Stirling Newberry 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please improve my annotations then. These are quick first tries to illustrate the idea; I'm more than happy to have improvements. But a list that provides no context for including (or excluding) a particular political leader is utterly worthless. FWIW, I personally think it's really silly to call Khomeini or Castro dictators; but at the same time, I know the description is often used, so we can explain the usage (and the flaws of the usage, in a NPOV way). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

if there are to be annotations, then it should be done in a systematic way. why do only a couple leaders get annotations? they all need and deserve annotations. I propose using a table:

Dictator	Country	Years in power	Notes
Kim Jong-il	North Korea	1994-present	General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party; Chairman of the National Defense Commission ("highest administrative authority")

--Jiang 23:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I like Jiang's table quite a bit. The reason why only a few names are annotated is because I've only got around to annotating a few. But it's a goal to annotate all of them. Still, if every annotation is "deleted on sight", there's no way it can get completed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion

User:Stirling Newberry has been deleting all those who have come into power through legal means. However, our article on dictator states, "Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office by legal means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional restraints." A list of dictators without Hitler just because he attained office through legal means is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. --Jiang 01:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think those names should be added back, with appropriate annotation to indicate the fact of coming to power (initially) by legal means. E.g. "Came to power by election in NNNN, suspended consitution in NNNN. More annotation on context". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'v been removing gross factual inaccuracies - editors are responsible for providing NPOV and citable material. Come up with a verifiable, non-original research NPOV date and I won't object. But I am not going to do someone elses work for them. Until it can be gotten right, it will be removed as per policy. It id patently ridiculous to have factual inaccuracies in an article. There are still more to be removed, several people on the list weren't dictators, in that they did not have dictatorial power - even if they were not democratically elected, or elected by means which were not free and fair. This isn't a list of "leaders who were not elected through free and fair means". Stirling Newberry 14:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We need some kind of criteria for inclusion in this article. An easy one would be that the person is described as a dictator in their biography. That keeps editors oif this article from having to decide. Other suggestions? -Willmcw 21:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skewing AfD vote

It's fine, of course, for Stirling Newberry to vote "delete" at the AfD. But he has been editing the page itself in ways that seem basically intended to "make it bad enough it deserves deletions". That's a really dishonest approach. Specifically, I believe the list could be worth keeping if names were annotated to provide good context for their inclusion. But every time I try to annotate a name, Stirling Newberry either deletes the name altogether or removes the annotation, hence assuring no motion towards "worth keeping". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFD debate link

Due to lack of consensus, this article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD votes do not have to be closed after 5 days. Sometimes they stay up longer while a consensus has the chance to be established. Wikipeida is not well served by allowing NPOV and NOR to be voted away because the delete votes were only at 60% instead of 67% at the end of 5 days-- hardly a significant difference anyway. 172 14:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe it should be reopened. I for one would like to vote and recommend reopening said debate, SqueakBox 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not tried to count the exact votes, which looked modestly tough with all the interspersed comments. But neither 60% nor 67% would be a consensus for deletion. Consensus is 75-80% (roughly) delete votes. There was nothing close to that shown, and no skew in that direction with the more recent votes. And it certainly wasn't a case where only newbies or sockpuppets voted to keep, experienced editors opined in both directions.

I'd request, 172, that you give up the deletion effort for a while, and work on providing helpful annotations in the new table format. A sentence or two can provide a lot of context for why someone is sometimes called a dictator, by whom, and so on. Me and several other editors have done this. Why not give us a couple months to try to shape this into an article that even you would think is worth keeping. If you don't think it's succeeded then, renominate it. (WP:FAITH and all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There has been a recurring demand (Categories, and Lists) for such an article. I am a deletionist, but the pattern I cannot deny. I think Lulu's annotations are a useful adjunct, and maybe will make more plain (down the road) for the list's deletion or keeping. I also agree with Jucifer that this should take centre stage as List of Dictators, because it was an implicit vote for that article as well. Wizzy…☎ 17:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at my request toward the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. You'd be able to make a better case for reopening the article than I, as you are an interested editor you did not get the chance to post your feedback on the AfD, not being aware of the vote until minutes after it had been closed. 172 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see that I have made any procedural error in closing the debate and keeping this article. If you wish to dispute the close, bring it to WP:DRV. If the attempt at making this article reasonably neutral fails, you can renominate it in a few weeks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There was clearly no procedural error. However, administrators overseeing AfD have discretion, and can use their discretion to extend discussion periods. Wikipedia is not a bureucracy; there's no need to fetishize the customary timetables that are in the end quite arbitrary. 172 14:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review, SqueakBox 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gross POV

By putting all American dictators in Latin America and not even having a section for the rest of the Americas editors have been indulging in the gross POV that all American dictators are Latin American. I have removed this incorrect subtle assertion and removed the wrongly placed English and Dutch speaking American countries out of the Latin American list into a different non Latin American list as by no stretch of the imagination can English or Dutch be considered Latin languages, leading me to wonder if the POV was deliberately done by North Americans who think the only dictators on the continent were Latin, SqueakBox 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And that's only among the many inherent problems on the list. Therefore, at the moment I am making the case to extend the AfD discussion beyond the minimum five day period in order to reign in this POV mess. 172 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (about the POV mess too), SqueakBox 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

C'mon! You're complaining about details that can very easily be edited as suggesting an "inherently POV" list. Fine, the Latin America heading was the wrong name, or Anglophone countries should not be listed there... just change it, for gosh sake! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gross Factual Inaccuracies

The list is loaded with gross factual inaccuracies - several leaders are listed from the date of their legitimate election or succession, rather than the date they assumed dictatorial power. Several leaders who did not have dicatorial powers - but ruled as the head of an undemocratic junta or oligarchy are listed. Not all leaders of one party states are dictators - for example the Presidents of Mexico under the PRI era were not dictators, even though there was one party control, rigging of elections and suspension of the rule of law. Stirling Newberry 14:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, some annotations are less good than others. Fix it! For example, look at my annotation of Nasser. I indicate both the years he was in power total, but also the years he was elected (even if as only candidate) as non-dictator years. I'm not an expert on Egypt, but it wasn't hard to add (and improve it if I got a nuance wrong). Do the same thing for any other leaders where the years seem wrongly listed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And that is just the start? Why have some dictators been chosen and others not? Why give prominence to Africa? Why does this article exist when none of these characters are described on their article pages as dictators? SqueakBox 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the table was begun with Africa. If their articles do not describe them as dictator, remove them from the list. Wizzy…☎ 14:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would be slightly more liberal here. If their articles describe them as dictators, quote briefly from those articles, giving dates and brief characterizations of events (sentence or two). However, if (non-fringe) outside sources call the figure a dictator, even if their WP article does not reflect this; a link to that external source provides sufficient documentation (but again, with a sentence or two explaining context).

As to Africa: the editing story is quite banal. It is a bit of editing work to convert the names to a table. I did that for Africa because it was alphabetically first. Then I added a few annotations within the table. There was absolutely no claim or judgement involved about dictators having any special relationship with Africa. Please convert the other continents to table format, and start annotating those as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make this article perfect

Jiang's table is IMHO fantastic - allowing for nuance and annotation. I think with a bit (maybe a lot) of work this will be a tremendous resource for those studying modern history. Two points come out of the debate:

• a) The name. A number of options were suggested. I am thinking, that the best name of all would actually be "List of dictators" with one of those italicised sub-headings saying For a list of Roman Dictators see List of Roman dictators or something? Very few people have the Romans in mind when they think of dictators - or is this just me?
• b) Lets also work towards a firm and unambiguous definition of dictator - get a consensus, and then asses the merits of the listed names in that framework. What are the thoughts on the definition I noted above - I tried to draw out the two defining features?

jucifer 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern day

During the AfD discussion, one concern was with the meaning of "modern day". I agree it's a bit fuzzy, and not quite as mellifluous as might be desired. But the real discussion was around "dictator" so I left that to the side. I think now that the AfD is voted, we should explicitly define "modern day". Some editors have suggested 1900 as a cutoff year, which has a roundness to it.

However, I would suggest we use 1848 as the beginning of "modern day", per Revolutions of 1848 (and Marx' book, obviously). That lets us include all but one or two of the names now listed; but it also marks a point where "democracy" became somewhat "normalized". It's only against a backdrop of popular rule seeming natural that modern dictatorship can stand out as a distinct thing (if the assumption is monarchy, there's little obvious contrast). Nothing special happened in the year 1900, but something somewhat special happened in 1848... obviously not all at once, but it acts as a nice pivot point for "modernity" politically. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's my POV, so I cannot argue with you. But I can hear the metaphoric heckling from the peanut gallery among the medievalists, Islamic studies specialists, and East Asia specialists who disagree with our POV. The term "modern" is way too contested to work as a title for this article. 172 19:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When I moved the content for clarity, I called it this since it is the way I speak more that anything else - it was really a fairly arbitrary way of separating out the Romans. What about "List of dictators (modern usage)" (or something like that) to clarify that the modern is really going on the current understanding, not of the definition of "modern" - which is (though uncontroversial) debatable.

Hmmm, was Napoleon the first dictator?

jucifer 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of modern is uncontroversial? I suggest that you do a bit more reading on all the different subjects that debate the term. 172 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What I mean by uncontroversial - it is not a POV issue, I should have made that clearer. It is though a "accuracy of language" issue and should be settled. What do you suggest would be the best title?

• Though we disagree on this matter 172, I do genuinely respect your work on wiki - you are a fine and passionate editor - and I hope we can put any bad blood behind us. Yours, jucifer 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have to admit to being surprised by what strikes me as a 180 degree turnaround, but that hardly matters. I'm in no postion to throw stones, having been on the rude side a bit too often back in the early days of Wikipedia, before Wikipedia's civility policies were well institutionalized. 172 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This list should be defined as all dictators exclusing Roman dictators. The term "modern" here is ambiguous and people have been removing 19th century / early 20th century dictators because if it. support moving this per jucifer's suggestion above. this list also needs some clear guidelines because people are adding and removing names and making a wasted effort. --Jiang 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the 1848 date to 1800. That gives us Napoleon III of France but not Napoleon I of France, which makes some sense to me. The characteristic of "modern day" dictators is that they are defined against a renewed normativity of democracy (or at least republican) forms of government. 1848 is a pivotal year, as I say above. However, 1800 as just after the French revolution and American constitutiuon isn't too bad. But either way, I think we should definitely exclude earlier (post-Roman) figures who may well have been "despotic", but didn't live in a world where the category of "dictator" (in the non-Roman sense) had a referent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Kabila

The guy is (now, not when he came to power) 34 years old. His power stems directly from his father. Dictator ? Do you think he throws his weight around ? No - I am sure he does what he is told - a figurehead. Other people tell him exactly what to do. Wizzy…☎ 18:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Whom is it that you imagine tells J.Kabila what to do? I agree any government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is tenuous; and elections really have not been possible in the last several years, no matter how good Kabila's intent. But that's sort of the point: "dictator" isn't automatically pejorative; by including a "good guy" on the list, we help show that we're not simply writing invectives. There have, however, been "bad guys" who were even younger.

That said, I'm thinking we should put some caveat like:

Following a peace agreement, an interim administration was set up in 2003, including the leaders of the country's two main rebel groups as vice-presidents (two other vice-presidents are representatives of the civilian opposition and government supporters respectively).

This helps emphasize the transitional nature of Kabila's role. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Rulers of DRC have all been Dictators. Mugabe is not even mentioned, and we are discussing Kabila the Younger. Whom is it that you imagine tells J.Kabila what to do? I could take some guesses - but I think that the current rulers of Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Uganda figure very prominently in his decision-making. I cannot believe he sleeps easy at night. Wizzy…☎ 18:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what point you're getting at. I did see someone recently removed Mugabe. I think with proper annotation that name could go back... but there's no point restoring raw names. It becomes just: "Yes he is!" / "No, he isn't!". Annotations can provide context.

Anyway, I'm quite certain Kabila doesn't sleep easily. But probably few leaders who lack the vacuity of, e.g. Bush Jr., do so. Rulers of Rwanda, Zimbabwe and Uganda certainly must figure strongly in Kabila's troubled dreams; but it's hardly like they each tell him to do the same thing as each other. In any case, I changed the annotation to indicate that since 2003 there has been an interim coallition rule. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO we should define the terms of reference (i.e. dictator) and then discuss the individuals in the light of that. That would probably save a lot a KB on the talk page. This is not to say that the definition is then set in stone, but just so we are all on the same page here. jucifer 19:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date Format?

Can we get a consensus as to whether the format for current dictators years should be "19xx - " or "19xx - current"? I'm not sure as to the standard, and I see both here. --ZachPruckowski 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the (1923-) is the usual way (e.g. in a biography.) No? jucifer 20:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm the first one to add the "current". That was pre-table, and it was mostly aesthetic. Please feel free to use the "19nn-" open interval if you like (and change the existing ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

the Manual of Style suggests that we do not use "19xx-" in biographies in favor of "born 19xx". I think it should be "19xx-present". The dash itself is not explicit enough and is not in line with wikipedia policy. --Jiang 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made those changes (I think I think I got the ones people hadn't changed already. Now for another question. "19xx - 19yy" looks nicer than "19xx-19yy" IMHO. I changed the Africa chart to reflect that, but didn't change the rest in case people didn't like the change.--ZachPruckowski 21:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

don't use a regular dash. use an ndash with no spaces. this is how birth/death dates for formatted in biographies. --Jiang 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicates

Now that the list has survived AfD, should it be merged into List of dictators? We could have the "list of lists" followed by the long table. Gazpacho 20:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• That might be an idea. But I think the "list of lists" while very relevent deal with the matter less directly and should be in a "see also" section perhaps. Or put into a paragraph together. If so, maybe there should be one of those italic sub-headers directing to the "List of Roman dictators" for the minority who will be looking for that. With those caveats I concur with your suggestion. jucifer 21:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continents

I have always understood "the Americas" to include the carribean. Is this wrong? jucifer 00:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Often, but not always, it is used that way. I don't see any disadvantage in being explicit that we mean to include the Carribean.

[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] Jiang's intro

I object to this edit for several reasons. Generally it is the sort of instrumentalized definition 172 warned about, one that is worded so that it happens to coincide with an editor's POV. It claims that a dictator must have each of certain characteristics, but there are many dictators without a cult of personality. It refers to "absolute" power, but defining "absolute" would require us to get into questions about power behind the throne and legislative independence where I see no end of disagreement. It excludes leaders who held power during "emergencies" and restored the rule of law, which unacceptably excludes Pinochet and allows a loophole through the definition of "rule of law."

I thought that we all understood that it is not feasible to define "dictator" neutrally and precisely, and we should not seek to do so. The notes column allows a case-by-case explanation. Gazpacho 10:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

if the definition of dictator given "happens to coincide with an editor's POV", then we can discuss the merits of each of the criteria individually. without an objective criteria for listing here, we will go on and on about whether or not a particular leader is a dictator, rather than whether the particular leader meets the criteria. The latter narrows the scope of the debate and makes it more manageable. I made this change to the lead after seeing in the course of these couple days names being added, then removed, and then re-added again. This is a wasted effort. The "case-by-case explanation" in the notes column can be used to settle and explain exactly how "absolute" a power was exercised or how flagrantly the "rule of law" was flouted. the current notes are mostly pov and amounts to "this guy is a dictator because he was oppressive blah blah blah". because there or not standards to go by, we can basically list any leader we think is bad onto this list. this article cannot achieve any semblance of neutrality without clear guidelines.

if we cannot create clear guidelines for listing, then the reversions will be endless. of course the definitions given here will only be one of many, but there is no other choice. you can choose to be all-encompassing, least-encompassing, or somewhere in between. what you choose must be clearly stated so editors dont add and remove entries according to their conflicting pov's. see how this is dealt with at list of sovereign states where the list is clearly defined to avoid the listing or microstates or removal of disputed states. this list is no different.

since you brought it up, we can discuss the merits of these guidelines here. 1) the very definition of "dictator" given by dictionaries and other encyclopedias uses the terminology "absolute ruler" if you can't tolerate the term absolute, then you should not tolerate the term dictator and should help nuke this list. "questions about power behind the throne" are irrelevant because monarchies are exluded. "questions about power behind legislative independence" can be addressed in the notes. an objective statement of the situation will solve the disagreements. 2) by emergencies, we should mean relatively short periods of times, not years. this will exclude pinochet. 3) how the rule of law is ignored should be explained in the notes section. 4) the cult of personality is more or less present in all dictatorships, but of course very slight in some. deviations like this can be noted in the notes section. it will keep those seeking to remove certain leaders from this list happy. --Jiang 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cumt of personality is often a feature of dictatirships but it is not a defining factor as far as I can tell from dictionaries. The definition is only really crucial in borderline cases. If someone is widely described as a dictator, and there are a handfull od dissenters - then they can be added here without further ado in line with NPOV.

Power behind the throne: If there are sources that say that x was basically a pupppet dictator then they should be noted allongside. I think it is only "rule by commitee" cases (eg post-Stalin USSR/post-Mao ChinA) that should not be on the list at all.

If an emergency continues for years, clearly it is not an emergency.

Ofcourse nothing outside theory is "absolute". What this means in practice is that one is unanswerable to anyone higher - so onces power is absolute in that sence. Note only some definitions use absolute - others use "powerful" which makes more sence. jucifer 16:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I did help nuke the list, by voting delete. I hope you're not saying you don't want my help. The List of sovereign states is completely different because it refers to an internationally recognized convention, while there is no such convention here. If we look for a precise definition we will argue over the list and the definition. If we leave it vague then we will argue over the list, which can be resolved via the notes column. I realize that this means I'll have to endure nonsense from the "bush = hitlar" set, but really I'm more concerned with annotating the rest of the list. Gazpacho 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Petain was not "absolute" since he was serving on Hilter's whim. jucifer 16:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cutoff date

From the Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836:

the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism. . . . . the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet. . . . civil society is dissolved into its original elements.

It doesn't use the word "dictator," but I can't see what distinguishes it from many other Latin American dictatorships. Setting the cutoff at 1800 puts us a little after the American and French revolutions, which started the modern trend of republicanism. It catches Napoleon, Santa Anna, and all of the officially titled dictators listed at dictator. And it's a round number. Gazpacho 10:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I changed it arround encompassing the main points and clafifying a few things. My intent was: a) seperate defining features of dictators from common ones b) put the exlusions in a more prosaic form c) detail the origins of the moderm usage to provide context Finally, I think that as for the years in power/dictatorship dichotomy the best way is to give the years in power, and if there is a difference that should be summarised in the notes. Ithink this would be clearer, otherwise if you missed the note you would be very confuesd. Also the years are more to give a general picture of the period than an exact time - that can be best served by noted IMHO. jucifer 18:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK sweet edits lulu. My only quible is the years is bracets business. I think it is unwieldly and is better off reocunted in the notes. But I dunno. jucifer 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think some kind of quick indicator in the year field itself is helpful to glance at. Reading the description might have caveats and more complex narrative. Whether parentheses, or italics, or whatever, I don't care, but some kind of simple "years elected" annotation is helpful IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern day/modern usage

I think there is some confusion here which is my fault. I think the article can be moved to "List of dictators" as it now stands (with the Roman note). That is what people would be looking for, and it would clear up any ambiguity in the definitions. Does anyone object?

jucifer 18:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

List of dictators currently is a content page with links to several related pages (including this one). So you can't really move this over that. I suppose a merge of some sort might be possible, but given the link back here, it seems easy enough for readers to find this list. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

True, but it was only started during the AfD and I have added all the content into a "See Also" headed at the bottom here. It's just that modern day refers to a vague period and modern usage refers to group of people that broadly correspond but not clearly, so I think that "modern day" is not really adding anything here. jucifer 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, fine with me to move then. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Jiang and the approval of Lulu, and with no expressed dissent, I will move the article to "List of Dictators". I will archive the extensive comment on the talk page there, and add the stuff that is here to there to ensure continuity. I will also provide a brief explaination. jucifer 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I am going to relist this page for deletion five days after the closing of the vote at the earliest, possibly somewhat later if my schedule does not allow to list it on Wednesday, barring considerable progress in the article. I will relist the article unless the criterion for inclusion of any leader becomes 'source X calls leader Y a dictator,' not that Wikipedia is classifying Y as such. Given the NPOV policy, it must be clear that Wikipedia is withholding editorial judgment, not endorsing the work of X or classifying Y on its own.

Further, progress must be made on the row entitled "years of rule." Years of dictatorial rule do not necessarily coincide with with the holding of any official office and vice versa. Despite all the nonsense we saw on the VfD thread, with some users asserting, "It's quite easy to figure out who is a dictator," it is not easy. Figuring out a criterion consistent in every row for "years of rule" down the entire column for every "dictator" will be quite difficult when one runs across figures who ruled largely informally such as Plutarco Elías Calles and Deng Xiaoping, will be a challenge. (I'm fundamentally skeptical that this can be accomplished within the confines of rows and tables embedded in an encyclopedia adhering to NOR and NPOV. But I wish everyone willing to give this article a chance luck, as I do not look forward to relisting it.) 172 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose. I think you should really give it a decent rest. If nothing else, I am confident that a large number of AfD voters will vote against a new AfD, in principle, if it is listed so very quickly after the defeat of a prior one (which is how they should vote: I would vote against such a rapidly renewed AfD on any topic, even if I otherwise thought it merited deletion). Anyway, I am entirely certain that a new AfD would be defeated by an even larger margin now that we've worked on the page. Other than a stubborn insistence that such a list must always be POV, I no longer see any concrete POV dispute here. I'm sure someone can argue about a particular name or its annotation, but in general, I think we have obtained a good quality, NPOV list now. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. I hope to see more acknowledgment, though, that the entries are on leaders 'regarded by some to have been dictators,' so that readers go away with the understanding that many of the matters brought up on the list are subject to further debate and research.

To the other users adide from Lulu, who is already familiar with what I am about to say, progress on the introduction will help avoid a relisting of the AfD. Less important than the focus on the pejorative implications of the term should shaper specification of the POVs of those using the term for any given leader, the limitations of what the term reveals, and the ambiguities associated with figuring out when to use a particular definition. I recommend that the users intersted in writing the intro take a look at Jeremy Shapiro's comment on the AfD. Shapiro's comment has been the most insightful basis for circumscribing the matter of 'listing modern dictators' stated so far. (I read it thinking, "I wish I'd been as clear all along." But I guess that there's no need to be hard on myself for not working on same level as someone like an associate of Habermas.) Save the personal references, perhaps the text of the comment can serve as a rough template for writing the intro. 172 23:16, 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)

So, who is going to administer a 24 hr block to User:Zoe for disruption, admitting WP:POINT. If that was an anon she would dish out a week minimum. --84.64.221.63 09:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)