Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). As vote count goes, we have something like 34 delete/23 keep. The argument has been over two different terms used in the title, "modern" and "dictator". Now, if "modern" is a concern, the page can be easily given an objective standard (dictators who ruled after 1900 for example). So it is the use of the term "dictator" that has caused trouble.

The argument for deletion here is that the title is inherently POV. Unlike list of Roman dictators, where "dictator" was a real official office, the term "modern day dictator" is not. It is a subjective term, and some people have called people such as George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin dictators. Some have said that Saddam Hussein was not a dictator because he was reelected in referendums where he got 90-100% of the vote. Who goes into such a list, who does not? Presidents like Robert Mugabe (elected and reelected in disputed elections) are certainly controversial.

The argument for "keep" is that the term is well defined. There is some merit to this, the term dictator certainly has a definition in all dictionaries. (Then again one might argue that "evil" has a clear definition, and that list of evil people will be difficult to work.) Things are not quite as severe with the term dictator since there are some standards which can be applied. Was the president elected in an election? Is there a peaceful mechanism for removing the president? Is there an opposition to the president which can operate without fear of persecution?

Personally, I am more convinced by the concerns of the "delete" voters here, but the "keep" side has enough merit to their arguments to not ignore the usual guideline of a two-thirds majority requirement for deletion. On this AFD discussion there is no consensus and, consequently, the article will not be deleted.

The article is in need of major work however, some of the presidents linked up on this page are not described as "dictators" in their articles, most likely because of POV concerns. Most importantly, some sort of definition for what will make a president a dictator which should be added to this list is needed. I am going to request comment on this at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD threads do not have to be closed on a rigid deadline. Many stay up for much longer. I don't see why we can wait more time to allow a clearer consensus to be established, so that we don't have to deal with the prospect of a minority of users getting away with voting NPOV and other concepts away based on a technicality. As of now the deletes are at 60% instead of the needed 67% percent at the end of five days-- an arbitary little difference that does not offer much of a compelling reason to keep the article. 172 14:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern day dictators

edit

I'm not ready to declare a consensus yet, but I did go through and attempt to weed out people's stated opinions from all the yelling and screaming. Basicly, I ignored everything except for things that looked like variations on Keep and Delete, and teased them out into a list. Everything was put into one of those two bins (i.e. if you added Weak or Strong or anything like that, it got lost to make it easier to process). I ended up with the list below (sorted in alphabetical order). If you expressed an opinion, please double-check the list below to make sure I haven't lost anybody, or accidentally counted somebody in the wrong group. --RoySmith 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I saw no evidence of sockpuppetry or anything else which would lead me to discount any opinions expressed --RoySmith 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring down, Roysmith counted roughly 31 deletes to 21 keeps, which means there's not going to be a consensus very soon. Kim Bruning 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a spin-off of list of dictators, which has been redirected to dictator for nearly three years because, for reasons stated over and over again on Talk:List of dictators, compiling such a list is an inherent violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The spin-off was created in order to avoid engaging in the long series of problems associated with the creation of such a page presented by a variety of editors on the original page over the course of several years. The consensus against the creation of such lists was further cemented with the deletion of similar lists found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian dictators and Category:Totalitarian dictators

  • Delete. 172 03:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Please User:172 could you withdraw this claim of bad faith. It is entirely without foundation, I divided the list in two for clarity and elegance and notified you of this on the talk page. You did not contest my action in principle. It is unfair to accuse me of attempting to avoid debate with you - I have responded to every point you have made. Please withdraw.}}jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and rejoinder I have been debating this article with User:172. I have engaged with him in endless discussion. A while ago, when he used to be an administrator, he was also doing this with others. At various times he has given four reasons for blanking the page (which I summarised for him and he did not dispute):
    • a) wikipedia cannot define "dictator".
    • b) even if it could, the topic would be lead to lots of conflict.
    • c) adding someone to a list of dictators constitutes "original research".
    • d) there are no sources for the list as a whole, since no-one has made such a list before.
  • I provided the following rejoinders:
    • a) it can; it is a dictionary definition the finer points (eg: absolute monarchs don't count) can be hashed out as usual on wiki
    • b) we must work for consensus on wiki - wiki does not shirk from controversial subjects
    • c) this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOR. Jimbo Wales explains what WP:NOR is about here and the exhaustive list of categories of things that can be excluded on the grounds of WP:NOR are listed here. Incidentally User:172 has made similar misuse of WP:NOR in the past (final comment on page) which contributed to the arbitration committees decision to remove his sysop status.
    • d) it is absurd to suggest that a list as a whole on wikipedia must be sourced elsewhere. What does need sourcing are the elements of a list, that is certainly no difficulty here.
  • In no way can a list of dictators be compared to a list of totalitarian dictators; there is no parallel - the first is a phrase that is ill-defined and disputed while the latter isn't significantly controversial and is universally used. (See below.) jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to established POV issues. Gazpacho 03:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-If it was retitled something like "List of contemporary leaders of nations classed as unfree by Freedomhouse" would that be acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Freedom House article already includes their ratings. Gazpacho 04:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep looking over the discussion on the List of Dictators page, which has now been split into two, for clarity, I noted that the REDIRECT was entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, this list was useful. I could see no POV, and even if there is (there may be) that is not a reason to delete an article - it is a reason to improve it. I noted that the other arguments against the list were equally without foundation, based on inexplicable misinterpretation of wikipedia policies, and refusal to even discus the possibility of there being a definition of the word "dictator" on the part of two users.
    • Dictator is a word with a clear definition, it is widely and uncontroversially used by historians, the media, the public, dictators themselves on occasion, and as can be seen here has similar definitions in eight different dictionaries.
    • A large number of individuals are universally accepted to be dictators. There is no doubt that there can be a valid, NPOV, list of dictators - therefore there is no justification to delete it - only to improve it until it is perfect like all articles on wiki.
    • The word "dictator" (-Roman) is used 27,700 times in english wikipedia alone and results in over 10m Google results. It is used to describe many people in wikipedia. The use of a word so often (and 8 similar dictionary definitions) implies some definition. To argue that this is a word that cannot be defined at all is simple obscurantism.
    • There is demand for such an article - it is in the top few percent of wikipedia article rated by most hits. jucifer 05:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean by this that it is POV to call anyone a dictator? If not - there should be a list even in your opinion, just one with fewer names. This needs debating, but POV issues are no reason to delete a page - they are reasons to improve a page. jucifer 06:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I mean exactly that. We don't need to "call" anybody a dictator, make an NPOV article which shows they're a dictator. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Dictator" is POV not because of the obvious cases like Hitler, but because of murkier cases. Is Mugabe a dictator? Is Putin? What about every leader of China since Mao? what about the white-minority heads of South Africa? Don't oversimplify the question. Gazpacho 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Dictator" is a descriptive and cannot be POV. What I assume you mean is that adding names incorrectly to the list is POV, you seem to accept that there are some people who can be so described (unlike Zoe). So let's be clear: when you say you want to delete the article because of POV, what you mean is you want to delete it beause POV can be added? Have I understood you correctly? jucifer 13:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I want it deleted because we cannot define the list should contain, despite trying. "Dictator" is descriptive but determining whom it describes is POV. Gazpacho 20:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless you deny the existance of any dictators, you have no valid grounds for calling for the deletion of this list - you must call for it's improvment in some way. Clearly, if there are dictators they can be listed. Co you think threre are no dictators? jucifer 20:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two points emerge from this.
    • POV in an article is no ground for deletion. This is made explicit in a policy statement here.
    • "Dictator" as discussed above is an objective not a subjective term, unlike evil/stupid and is applied universally to many people with only an extreme fan-base rejecting it in most cases. It is clearly defined in every dictionary, and encyclopedia (including here) and is used to describe people 27,700 times in wikipedia, and is used often in uncategorical terms in Britannica and elsewhere. Since (unless you with to take Zoe's position) there are certainly some dictators, there can be listed together. jucifer 07:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep Although I like this page for purely intellectual reasons, I realize it's quite subjective. Perhaps we could throw some of this information onto Dictator? I agree with the arguments of jucifer. I also agree that this topic should have a permanent neutrality warning and I think the rest of you are going to be reverting vandalism on this page for the rest of your days :-). JHMM13 09:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a permanent neutrality warning. This is certainly a topic which should be covered. CalJW 10:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictator means whatever a WP contributor wants it to mean, usually inclusive of personal Bete noirs. See also the vote on Totalitarian dictators Wizzy…☎ 11:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
    • As I feel I have shown, "dictator" only means whatever a WP contributor wants it to mean (as you put it) if that "WP contributor" desposes of (a) the english language, (b) NPOV, and (c) WP:NOR. jucifer 16:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV. An article on 'modern day dictators' can discuss a variety of definitions and interpretations, but a list will have to choose one definition and judge who meets it - that is POV. 'Consensus' is about agreeing on how to express verifiable facts, not about agreing which POV should triumph. Shall we have a List of non-existent deities on the basis that we can strive for a consensus on what should be included? --Doc ask? 12:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the word is well undestood, its meaning is not disputed by any mainstream writer. This is refleced in it's extensive use throughout Wiki, britanicca, and everywhere esle. I have yet to see any eveidence of major dispute about the meaning of the word. You argue that Consensus is about agreeing on how to express verifiable facts, not about agreing which POV should triumph - if you notice, agreeing on how to express verifiable facts and agreing which POV should triumph are the same thing here since there is no mainstream dissent about the meaning of this word. Indeed it has such a clear meaning that many supporters of dictators concede that their leaders are dictators - added the qualification "benevolent". jucifer 14:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (You will excuse me removing your bolding, which I find sore on the eyes.) Right OK, so we can decide, in an NPOV way, whether Mugabe is to be included? P.W. Botha? Gorbachov? Putin? No, I didn't think so. And actually, definitions of dictator are not identical, see the ones on the talk page. --Doc ask? 14:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to use straw-man arguements or be agressive or alter others posts. I do not excuse you for editing my post, please change it back. The definitions all have the same intent, and use similar language - the meaning of the word is as clear as any other and is not disputed by any source.
    • To find out what is the NPOV way, these need to be discussed in terms of a definition - then a consensus can be reached as allways. These are not especially difficult cases in the light of the various dictionary definition. The only thing that is in question here can be "the facts on the ground". Sometimes the answer will be "wait and see" (i.e. Putin/Mugabe) and "if in doubt leave it out". Gorbachov wasn't one, he didn't have absolute power (rule by committee) and Botha was appauling man but was restrained by the "rule of law" and did not wield wield absolute power. You see, if you have a definition it can be discussed, debated and a NPOV consensus reached.
      • If "absolute power" is a requirement then Mussolini is not a dictator; he answered to the king and the king finally dismissed him. Gazpacho
    • You assert (mistakenly IMHO) that there is no clear definition, argue that therefore no consensus could be reached on a number of borderline cases, then you imply that because of these cases no consensus could be reached so there can be no clear definition. That it a full circle by my reckoning.
    • Do you accept that there are some people who are objectivly dictators? If so why don't you campaign for this list to be kept, but pared down consentually? jucifer 15:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you could have an objective definition (and I'm not sure you can), it would still be subjective as to who met the definition. To take my staw-man List of non-existent deities: we could agree an objective criteria ('supposed gods that don't actually exist'), and we might mostly agree on certain examples that could be included (Zeus, Bacchus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster), so should we have such a list? Your arguement would seem to say 'yes', and let's discuss Allah and Jehovah on the talk page. I say such lists infringe NPOV.--Doc ask? 19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your comparison is not valid because while it is true that both "dictators" and "list of Gods that don't exist" have objective definitions, one is defined in every dictionary, encyclopedia, is used here 27,700 times, is used by historians without controversy many many times. The other one (geuss which) was made up today by a Doc and is in any case unpopulatable since you can never prove non-existence. I'm sure you think of a better fatuous comparison than this one. You see what you are looking for is not only a objective definition, but also a term widely accepted and discussed even though it may seem pejorative - maybe a list like this one or this one?
  • Strong Keep. Notable, encyclopedic. Many people would want to research the topic, and this list would make the research much easier. It is not inherently POV, as a defintion can allow editors to determine who should or should not be on the list. If some items are deemed POV, that is no reason to delete the list. I think people are mistakenly thinking that "dictator" is a subjective and perjorative term. It is commonly used that way, but it also has a pretty standard defintion as jucifer has demonstrated. For example, Hitler is not labeled a dictator because most of us dislike him but because he held unilateral control of his country. The list is not original research either; it is based on historical fact. Logophile 15:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup; certainly, the title could use some work, and the criteria of what a dictator is should be consistent with dictator. The word "dictator" is not inherently POV, but it's probably not appropriate as an article title. --Merovingian 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's quite easy to see who's dictator and who is not.  Grue  17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The definition of dictator is too ambiguous. Does it refer to method of taking power, their usage of power, media perception, abuse of power? Is it measured by western political standards? Standards within their continent? Standards within their country? For example, by western standards the last Shah of Iran was dictatorial. But by his country's standards how different was he? If a country has a long list of seizures of power, is method of coming to power relevant to definition of a dictator? If a country has a long history of 'strong' leadership and abuse of power, and someone else does the same, are they a dictator or just part of a pattern in that country? Leaders always base their leadership roles on what is the cultural traditions in their state and regions. 'Dictator' is a POV term. Some would say Mugabe is, others that he isn't. Ditto with the Shah and numerous others. Very few, like Hitler and Mussolini, are univerally defined as dictators. For that reason I think this list is too potentially POV to stay. There is no adequate definitions and context to avoid it containing POV opinions, even though in many cases my POV would also define most of the persons on the list as 'dictators'. FearÉIREANN 19:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup The word dictator isn't inherently POV, but who is deemed a dictator *may* be. Hence, I think we should keep the list, but limit it to people who are nearly unanimously deemed a dictator (Hitler, for example). Also, determining who is a dictator is definitely not original research. More importantly, I think some of you are being a little harsh to jucifer. Don't let the debate degenerate into incivility. To jucifer: you're kind of borderline Kilobyte Point of View, so try to slim it down.the1physicist 19:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the English language Wikipedia and, as Jucifer has pointed out, the term is well defined. Check the articles for each of the "members" on the list. If their entry makes reference to dictatorial practices and this article is deleted, then WP has some serious problems. This about ensuring NPOV which is not a valid reason for deletion, but for ensuring the list itself is NPOV. --Meiers Twins 20:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is there an OR warning? It's a list. Where is the research? If there are disputes put a disputed message next to whatever little dictator is disputed. Use the talk page. Start by hashing out an adequate definition for dictator. -- JJay 21:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No matter how well defined one can render the term, the problem is not so much the concept itself but applying it. Professional historians who spend their entire lives studying any of the regimes listed on this page disagree among themselves on important questions of state power and authority. The work of one historian may suggest that the historical record confirms the placement of a particular leader in such a list; the work of another historian may present a very different picture. The process of writing this list is one of arbitrating between professional historians who themselves disagree on the questions salient in making this classification, and is thus an exercise of original research of the clearest kind. 172 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Not OR. Otherwise, you are implying that nothing can be defined at Wikipedia. And spare me The process of writing this list. You haven't started the process. Start by defining some standards for inclusion. Put some quotes to justify why people are listed. If needed, add bags of quotes. Use footnotes- lots of them. Show opposing viewpoints. In fact, insist on opposing viewpoints. Why do you believe this has to be a neat little compendium, like a shopping list to be handed to a grocery clerk (1.Evil Dictator 2.Son of Evil Dictator 3. Mean bastard). Aim for a list that actually means something. -- JJay 22:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I second that. What you argue here User:172 is an excellent justification for improving the list, weeding out those borderline cases which may not fit the definition. Similarly I agree, that where there is evidence of a significant minority of historians disputing the characterization dictator it would be consistent with a NPOV not to list them as such. We are as one on this matter. There is no justification - from the indisputable fact that the article may contain POV, like every article on wiki - to delete it; the idea must be to improve it. Since you accept the existence of people who are objectively dictators, I do not understand how you can then argue that said dictators cannot be collated in a list. If there are dictators they can be listed - you are entitled to argue about which ones count, but there can be no justification for deleting the article on this ground. jucifer 22:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am not implying that nothing can be defined on Wikipedia. Earlier, on Talk:List of dictators, Jucifer attempted to make my argument into a reductio ad absurdum, stating that if dictators cannot be identified on Wikipedia on the grounds of NOR, on the same grounds we cannot identify a father on Wikipedia. However, just because some forms of categorization are not original research, that does not mean that no forms of categorization are original research. Regarding Jucifer's earlier father example, unless there is a paternity dispute, there is one and only one correct answer when it comes to the question about whether or not someone can be described as a father. However, for dictators, with the exception of the most readily obvious leaders who fit any reasonable definition of the term applied in any reasonable way (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc.), reasonable editors, even when they are all agreeing on a single standard definition, can be left with legitimate room for disagreement on whether or not a particular leader gets included in the list as they are applying the definition, or in other words as they are doing what social scientists call "operationalizing" the definition. In that sense, making the classification boils entirely down to what we observe in the past and on a broader level the perspective from which we understand and interpret the past. Historians often disagree on the nature and scope of the power of individual leaders, especially in authoritarian regimes where leadership is opaque, under-institutionalized, and not accountable. Sometimes historians do not even agree on the question of who even ruled; for example, a timeless theme in political historiography has been the phenomenon of the power behind the throne, arguing that certain leaders widely regarded as dictators were much more constrained than had been realized. Similarly, the lines are blurred when you have the disagreement between those who regard all nondemocratic or constitutional monarchial leaders as dictators, and those who reject the term when there is an element of collective leadership in either military regimes or single-party regimes. Earlier on this VfD, FearÉIREANN brought up examples of such ambiguous cases, just making a very brief statement of how and why this list is so problematic. 172 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • with the exception of the most readily obvious leaders who fit any reasonable definition of the term applied in any reasonable way (Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc.)- That's a good list right there, why don't we start with it? All your other points can be dealt with in the introduction or through footnotes. I would add it all verbatim. But since you have admitted that a reasonable definition can be achieved and applied, why don't you also withdraw your nom or switch to Keep? -- JJay 22:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The problem is that the process of making the judgment call is the original research. When the classifications are obvious, such as the cases that I mentioned, the problems of original research are not clear. But for an even far greater number of examples, the judgment concerning whether or not to include a particular leader winds with Wikipedia editors themselves arbitrating between professional historians. Depending on how they understand the definition of the term "dictator" itself, historians will disagree based on their own disagreements among themselves on the political development of power in a regime; in that sense, there is no clear method for determing with bias and original research whether or not figures like Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstatin Chernenko, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao are dictators. 172 23:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry, but that seems like a pathetic cop out to me. I have already offered a perfectly viable method for dealing with POV and the subtleties of history. Historians disagree on most things. If they always agreed, there would not be much need for historians at all, because the story would have already been told. You talk as if they were Homeric gods, arguing amongst themselves, while we, the mere mortal editors of Wikipedia, are hopelessly unqualified to understand their actions, or, god forgive, arbitrate. Luckily, of course, we have certain elite members, such as yourself, who can determine that Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. can be reasonably labelled dictators. I wonder what method you used to allow this judgement call? I wonder why Mao is on one side of the equation, but these other Chinese dictators, party apparatchiks, reformers, political figures are not. I will never know, though, because you do not believe this info should be shared with the rest of the world as it would inevitably demonstrate some type of bias and meets your definition of OR. This attitude, taken to its logical extreme, essentially precludes any discussion of any historical topic within the Wikipedia domain. Wikipedia would have to stamp a warning on every page- Do not discuss history. Articles on Britney Spears, the Simpsons, and Baseball Statistics preferred. This shows considerable contempt for the Wikipedia project. -- JJay 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I explained earlier, while some forms of classification are not original research, that does not mean that some forms are not. I am not calling the process of classification itself inherent original research; so my comments cannot be taken to the extreme, as you suggest. However, efforts at making classifications are inherent original research when they are based on inductive inferences premised on unstated and unsourced assumptions about the political regime on which historians themselves disagree. In contrast, lists classifying other subjects are just reporting on society and culture. For example, the list of supermodels and the list of skyscrapers are fine. (The authors of the lists are not consciously constructing, operationalizing, their own classification. Instead, particularly in the case of supermodels, they are dealing with self-defining subjects recognized as such by their peers and the businesses in the fashion industry.) Re: Luckily, of course, we have certain elite members, such as yourself, who can determine that Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. can be reasonably labelled dictators. Thanks for the complement, as a historian, my areas of expertise and specialization only extend to a very tiny number of the leaders listed on the page, as will be the case for any historian. At any rate, no Wikipedia editor is above WP:NOR just because of what kind of credentials the person who knows the password to a particular Wikipedia user account may or may not have. 172 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I’m glad you appreciated my complement. I also feel enormous relief for the editors of List of supermodels and List of Skyscrapers that their process of classification meets your approval. They can now join Britney, Bart and Baseball on the Wikipedia list of acceptable list topics. Of course, if a supermodel became a dictator, that might cause real problems, particularly if said dictator was featured on the Simpsons or owned a baseball team, as is so often the case. Yup, the world might crumble at that point, what with the colliding of society, culture and history and all...as if society and culture have any meaning without history. Or what if whole schools of supermodel dictators appeared, all recognized as such by their industry peers, craftily catwalking their way to world domination? Our readers would certainly be lost, given their lack of frame of reference due to the endless arguments of pesky historians, such as yourself, although wikipedians may have absorbed some knowledge owing to the inexplicable historical propensity of dictators to live in skyscrapers. I assume, at that point, you would approve the construction and operationalization of Wikipedia classifications for those of the dictator persuasion, although I may be poorly deconstructing the thrust of your argument, I admit, because I sometimes get lost in the endless swirls of circular logic I learned in grad school and I apologize to anyone who has had difficulty following said logic. Please note that my expertise and credentials permit me to speak on these matters and Wikipedia policy in general, as I have specialized in a small number of Supermodels, my research conducted late at night in darkened rooms, perhaps not unlike many professional historians, few of whom are also Supermodels. -- JJay 03:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hum, leaving it at that, on your last note it sounds as if you've made out better after grad school that most anyone I know... Anyway, thank you for the reply. To further clarify the distinction that I was making on the basis of the example comparing the list of supermodels and list of dictatos, supermodels are listed on the basis of their affiliation with the huge industry that has manufactured the very notion of "supermodel"; that is clearly reporting, not original research. When listing dictators, however, we constructing consciously our own categorical scheme predicating relevant questions on which historians often disagree (e.g., the extent of the power of a general secretary in a Communist regime with a collective leadership), and at that an understanding of what is a dictator that is almost certainly culturally and historically specific to our own society. 172 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, 172, I’ll give you high marks for good cheer. Not for logic or sincerity, though, because the holes in your thinking are so great, that this discussion could join the Titanic at any minute. While you cling to the sides of the sinking ship, refusing the lifeline I’ve repeatedly thrown you, screaming Captain oh Captain, I’ve been busy trying to develop a list of dictators not constructed on a categorical scheme predicating relevant questions on which historians often disagree. Unlike you, I'm interested in information dissemination for the benefit of wikipedians and the greater world, rather than supression. As instructed, I have avoided historians altogether. This facilitated my task given that historians spend most of their time: (i) arguing in a language incomprehensible for those not ordained in their sacred order, such as yourself ; (ii) plagiarizing other historians (you fully know how much professional historians hate to sully themselves in dingy little archives); (iii) trying to pick-up their students or back stab other historians as they desperately claw their way to tenure.
Considering my area of expertise, I have long been fascinated with the innumerable similarities between Supermodels and Dictators (obsession with self image, unbridled ego, numerous flunkies at their beck and call, many fans and detractors, rich through industry/national dominance, media fascination/manipulation, etc. etc, etc.). Since you recognize the validity of List of supermodels, based on their affiliation with the huge industry that has manufactured the very notion of "supermodel"- a definition, I would note, that ignores their zeitgeist and degrades their very real achievements- and deny that List of supermodels is culturally and historically specific to our own society, I have applied your thinking and engaged the classification process from the standpoint of reporting, not original research.
I have chosen not to focus my data gathering methodology on sources strongly affiliated with the Dictator industry, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the OHCHR, etc, since their stuff is all pretty boring, and way over the heads of most Supermodels and Dictators. Instead, I have used sources that are known to appeal to both Supermodels and Dictators, such as Parade Magazine, which proudly publishes a List of The World's 10 Worst Dictators [[1]], Wave Magazine, which gives us The World’s Weirdest Dictators, [[2]], and the numerous polls carried out by www.bestandworst.com, such as Who Is the Sexiest Dictator?. The answer, of course, being Hitler [[3]]. I have cross checked validity with mentions on the Simpsons, Forbes magazine’s list of the 400 richest people (every good dictator needs to hit this list at least once) [[4]], Amazon book rank (Dictators, like historians, check this every day), and sales at the Dictators of the Twentieth Century Store- now featuring Hitler [[5]].
If you attempt to challenge these sources, I would submit that your historian school has failed in its duties to inform you that dictators, like supermodels, have long been concerned about where they fit in the scheme of things, and frequently consult these types of lists as proof that they are correctly recognized for their achievements. I also needn't remind you that these are all perfectly valid sources for Wikipedia editors reporters. Since dictators already have lists and a store, shouldn't we out of a concept of fairness, give them a list, like we have done for Supermodels and Skyscrapers? Or does not our List of supermodels actually represent a flagrant application of our historical and cultural specificities, as you have so strongly denied?. If you find the time, I would very much appreciate your professional historian point of view on these issues. -- JJay 23:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's Parade Magazine, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the blurring between history and entertainment. I recommend Eric Foner's collection of essays in his Who Owns History?, which offers a critical look at histories offered to the mass public for entertainment. Historians get a lot of negative feedback from the public from so many different directions; Foner's defense, though, is pretty effective. At any rate, I admit, if an arbitratary line is going to be drawn, drawing one rendering the work of professional historians (here in the U.S. esp. members of the American Historical Association) hegemonic in the production of content on history in encyclopedias is one I feel comfortable drawing. 172 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your response 172 and the suggestion regarding Eric Foner. As he is apparently a tenured historian at an elite institution, and also a political figure of some renown, I doubt I would be qualified to examine his essays or interpret his criticism. And while I struggle to understand your remarks, I will interpret them as a concession that a Modern Dictator List is acceptable given its coverage by the popular press. I thank you warmly and am also frequently both uncomfortable and comfortable as logic is frequently discomforting. -- JJay 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Parade lists can be reproduced in Parade-magazine related articles. But to think of them as a possible main source for a list of dictators on Wikipedia just serves to lower the standards of NPOV and sources used in our articles on history and politics. If Parade is the best source with which we can work on list of dictators, Wikipedia is better off not even bothering with the attempt to write the list. John Kenney said it best earlier: "This list is going to be inherently problematic, and it's best not to try." 172 02:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I had you rattled, but am happy you have regained your comfort level. Since you have precluded every other source, sagacious 172, I will use the sources you allow. It will be my main source, along with the others I cited. Will seek comparable lists from other countries to give it some international flavour. Hopefully, Dictator lists are published in countries like North Korea. Wouldn't that be gleeful. See Blender Magazine's 50 Worst Songs Ever! for what I have in mind. If we can do it for songs, we can do it for dictators, pardon my French. I might even cite Eric Foner, unless the revolution happens first. -- JJay 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming modern day is > 1990 , and that the list is maintained to conform with the encyclopedic definition at dictator. Keep. Kim Bruning 21:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Far too subjective. G-Man 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of this type need to have a clear criteria for inclusion, which this list does not have. I note that many of the people listed are not called "dictators" in their WP biographies (Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Gerardo Machado, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Georgi Dimitrov, etc). -Willmcw 22:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria could not be clearer - it is a universally accepted objective definition. I totally agree that there may be names on the list that should not be there (I didn't compose it) but, this is no criterion for deletion of the article. Since there are certainly some dictators there can be no reason not to have them listed. jucifer 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is a universal accepted objective definition, what is it? and what is the authority behind it? Gazpacho 22:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether or not there is such a "universally accepted objective definition," assuming there even is one, there is no 'universally accepted' way of interpreting and applying the definitions that you are finding in dictionaries. In the end, the problem of applying the definition has the most bearing on the status of lists along these lines in an encyclopedia that eschews original research. For example, core figures of the collective leadership of a single-party state (e.g., Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, etc.) do or do not meet the definition of "dictator" depending not on the basis of which definition is being employed, but rather on the basis of the implications of the competing interpretive schemes employed by historians and political scientists in order to understand the internal dynamics of the regime itself (e.g., the contention between Russian and Soviet scholars following the model of bureaucratic pluralism on one hand, and totalitarianism on the other). In this sense, a couple of political scientists who spent their entire lives studying the PRC can accept the same definition of the term "dictator" but at the same time disagree on whether or not Jiang Zemin was one. 172 22:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In responce to Gazpacho, I say the definition is universally accepted as objective because I'm not aware of any mainstream dispute of its use at least to describe some people. It is in every dictionairy with very similar definitions, it is used in every encylopedia, by every historian. No, authority has been cited that disputes this (at the very least I can say that an overwhelming body of evidence backs this up) - the meaning of the word according to the dictioanries is "absolute power" with no "rule of law" or words to that extent. 8 definitions are listed on the talk page. They are all fine.
    • 172, this again I quite agree with, but this is relevent when discussing Jiang Zemin's place on the list, (FYI I dont think he should be) you would like to delete the entire list and this arguement provides no justification. You also argue above that threre are some leaders who ruled as part of a colective where it is difficult to determine. That may be and again as always in life and wiki, "if in doubt leave it out". All these points do is question whether people should be on the list - they in no way justify the deletion of the list. This debate is becoming more and more obscure.
You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? That is the crucial question you must answer here. Yours, jucifer 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there have been dicators. However, that point is moot. Original research is not necessarily wrong. It is not necessarily POV. Original research is original research because of the process by which classifications are made and information is determined, not because of the outcomes. For the purposes of Wikipedia editors, on what basis can the claim that Jiang Zemin was not a dictator be stated in Wikipedia? It cannot be on the basis of anything that you or I can state on Wikipedia, no matter how valid the kinds of inductive inferences that we make are on their own merits. In order not to be original research, the answer would have to be 'another reference source has generated the same kind of list, and it doesn't have Jiang on it.' If another sourcebook or encyclopedia that does not have a policy against original research (as it is professionally written by recognized experts in their respective fields) carried out the kind of research project that you are now attempted and published its own 'list of dictators,' only then would we be able to reproduce their research and avoid the problem of NOR inherent in generating this list, with the source being duly noted in the references section of the article. In other words, Wikipeidia editors can report the findings of research projects conducted by professionals and published outside Wikipedia; but they can not engage in their own research projects on Wikipedia, even if they can manage to reach some painfully obvious correct conclusions (e.g., Stalin was a dictator). 172 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands now. The criteria for inclusion are not specific enough, in both a factual and a citational sense. Regarding the former, the reference to the dictator is totally worthless, as that article gives only a vague factual definition itself. Regarding the latter, the list should make clear as to by whom precisely one must be called a dictator for inclusion. Also, especially problematic is the question of dictators who claim to be something else, and no mention is made of these cases on the list. Dsol 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Since the page Dictator give a pretty clear definition of what a dictator is, it possible to create a list of figures. The "totalitarian dictators" cat was mostly flawed because of the first word. But an individual invested essentially autonomous legislative authority is a decidable legal/historical question; it does require some careful treading, but it is not inherently original research or POV. A list (versus a category) has an advantage in that it can be annotated and structured. So some particular individual might have an annotation "Was declared a dictator by UN resolution NNN" or "According to Amnesty International..." And the list could also have sections and descriptions that contextualize the names listed per section. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have the UN or Amnesty ever declared someone to be a dictator? --Doc ask? 00:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is on the mark in figuring out the way to draft this article with reference to WP:NOR. I would agree with his conclusion, but stuff like UN resolutions or Amnesty classifications are no where to be found. The term is just used loosely by those who intend for it to be pejorative, or who do not mind the pejorative implications of the usage. As a historian dealing with these kinds of matters for decades, I am drawing a blank when it comes to trying to think of someone or some group in contrast applying the term "dictator" systematically and with some rigor. I would be astonished if I were to find out that I'd overlooked such work for so long. 172 00:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD vote shouldn't be on the worth of a page as it exists right now, but on whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with the topic in the title. I'm not at all endorsing the quality of the page as of the current edit, but rather that it has the potential of being a good article. I dunno exactly what evidence for a particular claim would be found for any given inclusion, but I can see sources might make statements... not necessarily using the word "dictator", but indicating a leader has personal legislative authority. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point and I understand where you are coming from. I respect your position. Based on your criterion for voting, I see an argument to be made for keeping but redirecting until we find a professionally published list drafted systematically with some rigor, as I keep mentioning. I suppose that my orientation on Wikipedia is more "deletionist" in that I consider not only whether there could ever be an encyclopedic article with such a title but also community-related concerns, i.e. the likelihood that things will not work out as they should on Wikipedia. Based on my own stance regarding AfDs, my position is delete until such a source is found, but recreate the article when and if such a source is found. 172 03:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the redirecting thing. Someone else's "professionally published" list has no reason to be any better, nor any more or less POV, than one WP creates collectively. We editors are just as good as whoever Encyclopedia Brittianica might hire, or that Amnesty International might create (at least in the long run). I tend to take whatever exists as a starting point (assuming you can ineed imagine a possible good article under the title): the first thing is to start annotating names with information on the sense in which they are "dictators", and who says this of them. It's not even necessarily a pejorative to include names: "benign dictators" are discussed in the dictator article... you or I might not endorse the "benign" part, but some supporters of a given political leader might. Obviously, sources who make claims should be a bit reputable: I'm not inclined to list someone because the John Birch Society called them a dictator. But if a reputable political scientist described a political figure as being a dictator (or something else close to the definition), that's citable, and enough to include the name, with such annotation. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is standard procedure for topics which seem subjective to be thoroughly explained rather than ignored. Why is this case different? Just make sections for the various definitions of "dictator", and list those who fit that definition. If List of Roman dictators is allowed, then obviously this should be also. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-27 00:29
    • There is a clear difference. The Roman dictators held an office called "dictator" in the same sense that someone like George W. Bush holds the legal title of president. They were dictators in the sense that they themselves used the term to refer to the posts, not in the sense that we today are calling them "dictators" based on our own conscious construction of what the term "dictator" means to us. 172 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator and helpful long-standing consensus. Ambi 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:172 could you plese respond to the cenrtal question I posed above and also respond to JayJ's critique of your "original" take on WP:NOR on which you justify this nomination.jucifer 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is going to be inherently problematic, and it's best not to try. The claim that the term is clearly defined in the dictator article is also not true. It is defined loosely in the dictator article, because it is not a term with a precise meaning. Is the head of a military junta a dictator? Is the communist general secretary in a situation where leadership is essentially collective? Is a leader who maintains himself in power by moderately corrupt, but quite possibly genuinely won, elections? Is a monarch who retains considerable personal power? john k 01:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So why exactly was Mao classified as dicatator and Deng and Jiang wasn't? Was it because Deng was more favored in the west? During the Cultural Revolution, absolute power rested with the hands of the Gang of Four, as well as Lin Biao. Mao really couldn't do much in terms of policy without these peoples' support. Between 1966-1968, however, Mao held absolute power, and in my opinion, only in those three years could Mao fit the "definition" of a dictator. Through one country's example, one could see the case for "Keep" is flawed. Colipon (T) 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word has well accepted definition. See the talk page, see above. Indeed it must do since there are certain people who are universally accepted as dictators. Since there are some dictators, why can they not be listed? jucifer 01:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have it mixed up. Scholars do not affirm methods of conducting research based on whether it works in the easiest cases, but instead on the basis of the harder cases. Also, the cases that I called obvious (based on my own original research) are problematic because the process of reaching the conclusion was the original research; and the findings of original research are kept out of Wikipedia not because they are necessarily wrong or POV but rahter because the process of original research is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. 172 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with an article of this type is that there is no way to produce a non-POV comprehensive list. Even if we created the requirement that every dictator listed had to be sourced, there's the problem of whether or not the sources cited are authoritative (as opposed to polemical or rhetorical in their usage of 'dictator'). If the list included only those that were universally agreed to (or who self-defined as a dictator) it would be so short as to be virtually useless. If the list was "comprehensive," it would include nearly every modern leader, and thus be useless to our readers.—thames 02:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are problems with the list. So what? There are problems with most articles on Wikipedia, as you can note on any Talk Page. Having problems does not warrant a vote of "delete." It warrants careful editing and sincere attempts by the editors to solve the problems. I would also like to ask 172 to actually give an answer to the question, "If you admit that there are dictators, then why can't they be listed?" If he refuses to answer that question, then I think he is not acting in good faith. Logophile 02:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut me some slack here. If I'm not answering a question, I just haven't noticed it yet or haven't gotten around to replying. The volume of discussion here is now so large that even if I were to devote an entire day to working on Wikipedia (I'm having to work on multiple things not related to Wikipedia at once while I'm online!), I may not be able to respond to everything to which I want to respond right away. At any rate, in response to the above, while I believe that there are some leaders for whom there are no reasonable objections to describing as dictators (e.g., Stalin), on what basis does such a list include or exclude the borderline cases pointed out by John Kenney, Jtdirl, Colipon, some other editors, and me? Either way, the list will always be POV if leaders like Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin or excluded or included. In the end, all the problems of POV and ambiguous cases boil down to who is making the description. If the list is a reproduction of one drafted by a professionally written sourcebook or encyclopedia, who is making the description can be duly cited (in such a case Wikipedia itself is only asserting that x said y, which can never be POV-- with readers capable of making up their own mind on the POV of x). If not, if the descriptions are the judgments of Wikipedia editors such as myself, the list is original research because the listing was original research. Since I am not aware of a professionally written list of "modern day dictators" drafted systematically with some rigor that we can find, reproduce, and cite for use in the page here, the subject of dictatorships cannot be configured into a list on Wikipeidia. Nevertheless, we can and already do address the subject in the dictator and dictatorship articles, which already deals with the subjects of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and other historical figures as dictators in their proper contexts. 172 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I glad you have answered my question. I asked you that since You yourself accept that there are some dictators - why can they not be collated in a list? You replied that because the process of reaching the conclusion was the original research; and the findings of original research are kept out of Wikipedia not because they are necessarily wrong or POV but rahter because the process of original research is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. The important thing you have said has thrown your simply ludicrous intepretation of WP:NOR into sharp relief. I'm glad you aresuddendly being straightforward. You are arguing that we cannot have a list of dictators because WP:NOR precludes us from describing anyone as a dictator. Since you are well aware, that you can't argue for the deletion of this list completely on the grounds of WP:NPOV (since some dictators are universally held to be so). You are asking poeple to accept that Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin and others, cannot be described as dictators - because doing so would constitute original research.

  • That is simply the most breathtaking, most fatuous arguement I have seen on wikipedia - and I say this in exasperation since I have repeatetly asked you to clarify how you read your novella into the WP:NOR policy, and you have you yet to even make an attempt. I think you need to take a step back and get some perspective, because this is unseemly. After a few days of logical dead ends, you have ended up in this corner. jucifer 03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not stating that no one can be described as dictators on Wikipedia. I am stating that the basis for describing them as such cannot be because you and I think so, but because Wikipedia can cite x saying y. Admittedly, the problems with POV are not so obvious in the cases of leaders whom everyone on Wikipedia finds very repellant (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and a handful of others). Nevertheless, the critical test that your list has to pass is whether or not it can deal with the far greater number of leaders who meet your definition of the term not because it is so "obvious" but depending on which historian or social scientist you read. The title of the article, after all, is list of modern day dictators, not list of people who were obviously dictators. Your list fails way too many tests; John Kenney, Jtdirl, Colipon, and I have pointed out only a small sampling. 172 04:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently pov - determining whether someone is a dictator is subjective.--Jiang 04:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The term "modern dictator" has two inherent problems: what is "modern" and what is "dictator". Someone above says something along the lines that the article "dictator" gives a precise defintion. Well, it doesn't. It speaks as vaguely as the notion is. mikka (t) 04:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 172, you still seem to be operating under the assumption that the term "dictator" is subjective, like the word "evil". That's why their could never be a list of "evil politicians". In this case it is simple--apply the definition. That's not OR; it's historical fact. For example, Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana dismissed his administration and ruled by dictating. That makes him a dictator. If somebody meets one or more of the criteria in the definition, then he is a dictator. It's not different from saying that somebody is a vegetarian because he will not eat meat or that somebody is a philanthropist because he gives large sums of money away. Just apply the definition. If somebody disputes an item on the list then the editors can hash it out: Did the person suspend the legislature? Did he or she continue in office by prohibiting opposition parties? Did he or she write laws unilaterally? (And so on. . .) It's simple. Logophile 08:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to miss the main point: the definition itself is vague. While some rulers fit, others are disputable. USA President has an ultimate power during military emergency, but we are not going to list Roosevelt among dictators. Lukashenko did not suspend legislature, did not prohibit opposition parties, does not write laws unilaterally. Still he is considered dictator. Examples abound. mikka (t) 08:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not been making the argument that the term cannot be applied because it is too value-laden. My concerns relate to the problems Mikka clearly noted above. Whether or not some leaders fit a particular defition is often quite ambigious, even if the term can be used in a non-loaded, value-neutral sense. A good recent example is the debate among China specialists following the 16th CPC Party Congress in 2002, when no one was really even sure Hu Jintao was actually in charge; some thought that Jiang Zemin would continue to rule the country from behind the scenes from "retirement," as Deng Xiaoping did before him. 172 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename While I agree that the term dictator is somewhat POV, the fact, as mentioned by another editor, that this is the English language wiki and that the vast majority of those whose native tongue is English would agree that most of the persons on the list do indeed fall into the definition of a dictator, makes the list accurate. The words "modern day" don't really apply to Hitler since he has been dead for 60 years...so that may need some work.--MONGO 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictator has too many interpretations, borderline cases too difficult, would be better as category if it has to exist (ensuring that each case is fully discussed at the appropriate place, i.e. the article on the person in question). If we must have lists of this kind (and with every example I come across, I dislike them a little more, doubt their usefulness a little more), they must be based on clear and unambiguous and well-defined criteria, and not mix up things that are too dissimilar. So if necessary - List of Roman dictators (or better, Category:Roman dictators), List of political leaders who took or sustained power by military means (1900-2000), List of Communist Party heads of government, etc. (These would have their own definitional issues, but at least the range would be narrowed.) "Dictator" aside, "modern-day" also has definitional issues, and its insertion seems designed primarily to sidestep the List of dictators debate (for which Gazpacho's recent solution seems reasonable, though in that form it might better be a subsection of Dictator). Rd232 talk 10:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not that it matters, these list of dictators AFDs are a farce. I'm almost glad that this time, politically conservative tendencies are strong enough to keep it, thereby saving everyone from expending energy in the very near future with yet another new "list of dictators" article (that is, if there was still a measure of half-sanity to the wiki and it was deleted). Down we go. El_C 10:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly POV. If someone added George W. Bush would it stand? Many people feel he should be on the list, clearly some POVs will be represented and others not. More over there are plenty of leaders who have very broad powers who gained them by election, but are still considered dictators by large factions of their population - for example Hugo Chavez. Stirling Newberry 15:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, of course, for Stirling Newberry to vote "delete". 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)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictator is such a loaded term that applying it to anyone is POV. I'm not saying dictators don't exist, just that the term has no place in a Wikipedia title (aside from the article dictator). If someone is described as a dictator, that needs to be footnoted and phrased to say "So-and-so considers Person X to be a dictator" or somesuch. You might salvage this from deletion if you moved it to List of modern-day individuals who have been called dictators or something (note the hyphen). Then each and every entry would need to be sourced explicitly to say who had referred to that individual as a dictator. BrianSmithson 17:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can imagine an NPOV, well-cited article on this topic, but this isn't it. Both "modern day" and "dictator" are subject to contention as to their meaning. I would suggest a cut-off date of 1900 and a list of objectively verifiable criteria for calling someone a dictator. For example, we could come up with a list of sources (or of classes of sources) that we consider relevant, and that for each person on the list we would indicate which of these sources so describe them. Also, we could probably say that certain criteria absolutely remove someone from consideration for the list: a freely functioning parliament (even one on a narrow franchise) that occasionally overrides vetoes, an independent judiciary that often rules against the government, possibly even a free press and freedom of movement. I also think that, because gray areas are inevitable, this list should be annotated. In particular, someone may not be a dictator when he takes office, but may become one. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too inherently subjective. I'm not worried about calling Hitler and Stalin dictators. I am worried about borderline cases (Hugo Chavez, Alberto Fujimori, and so on). And if anybody has particular issues with my latter examples, that just furthers my point. --Bletch 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth, I have zero issues with the term "modern" - all that means is that we have to pick a specific year and go with that. And thus, everything else that applies to this article also applies to "List of dictators". --Bletch 01:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, appies to how List of dictators used to be. --Bletch 02:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've been busy at List of dictators. Lists on Wikipedia are important for organizing information and we should seek to have them, rather than removing them, so long as they are NPOV. An original list cannot constitute original research, or we'd have to delete nearly every list. Gazpacho 22:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the same reason as Bletch. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete "Modern" probably isn't the best moniker for this. There might be a better word than dictator also. The list itself is quite extensive. HackJandy 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can longer keep debating here as I am going on vacation for a few days. I have no doubt that when I return User:172 will have had this list will deleted since he will continue his spamming campaign - I certainly hope not. If it is this will mean a precedent for 172's willful manipulation of the WP:NOR policy to suit his own prejudices. It will also be an extreme POV action as it will be an endorsement of ultra-relativism as NPOV. Any thinking person reading this list will understand the his grounds for deletion have been refuted.
I say this regretfully, but his behaviour has been - "eccentric" - let us say. He has deleted a large number of comments on the talk page of List of dictators without justification and providing a misleading edit summary. He has accused me of bad faith, and refused to withdraw. He has spammed around 25 users with no prior interest in this page - often complimenting them and then asking for them to vote; portraying me as some kind of "barbarian" trying to defy a "consensus" about his risible adaption of WP:NOR. But not only did he spam profusely, he also vainly tried to hide the fact that he was doing this by instead of going to the "add comment" tab and adding a comment (see how that works?), he went out of his way to scroll to the bottom of every users talk page - open up the last comment and add a new header. You see, when you do that you don't have a long list of "user contributions" saying "Please vote", since the header you edited was on some random subject. He has deleted someone else's comment on a the List of dictators talk page and mislabeled the edit, and failed to replace it despite requests. When the1physicist politely questioned him on his general take on NOR on his own talk page recently - not only did he delete the comment (see here) but he falsified the "edit summary". When the1physicist questioned about this he again deleted the comment (see here). He is merely repeating a pattern of behavour that ultimatly lead to him joining the select club of "former administrators".
  • As I have have oft' pointed out without dispute, there is no fundamental POV with this page: if there are some dictators they can be listed.
  • To those who say that the presence/likelihood of POV on a page is a ground for deletion, I refer you to wiki policy and Talk:Daniel Brandt on this matter.
  • As for the reason for this nomination, User:172's "interpretation" of the WP:NOR policy, I merely point out that this is without foundation - and 172 has (despite requests) failed to show how this fits in with any of the potential categories of OR listed. Ironically, as Jimbo Wales explains(here) the WP:NOR policy exists to stop exactly this kind of personal crusade (of three years standing, by the way), and the kind of crack-pot interpretation the User:172 is himself using to justify the deletion of this article.

jucifer 01:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have been more than willing to clarify my reasoning on this AfD thread and pages like Talk:List of dictators. But I do not respond to accusations posted on my talk page or long ad hominem diatribes, such as what we see above. Diverting the focus to attacking me personally just serves to illustrate the fact that little of substance can be said in response to the comments of many editors in addition to me who have been bringing up many examples of leaders who fall into the gray area, and thus can only be included in the list on the basis of the judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors themselves. I do not feel the need to respond to any of the number of spurious allegations against me found above at the moment; but I will be happy to reply to good faith questions concerning issues brought up by Jucifer above on the talk page of this AfD. 172 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jucifer's comments are both unfair and unworthy. 172 did not spam me, for example, he sought my opinion, as he knows I am a long time contributor to WP and someone from an academic background who applies NPOV standards rigidly. He also knows that I am independent-minded and will not simply vote a particular way because it would suit him. If I thought he was wrong and you were right I would have voted to keep. Users regularly inform me of debates if it is in a topic they think is in my area of expertise because I will offer my analysis, not theirs. I have never considered, and never will consider, being contacted by someone I know, or someone who is participating in a debate on an topic of interest to me, to inform me about a debate on a topic I have already discussed before (even if not in that instance) as spamming.

The fact is that I cannot find any justification for a list that is based solely on subjective criteria with no objective verification added. Nor can I, as a political scientist and historian, stand over a list that fails to meet the standard academic requirement of context.

Your attack on 172 was grossly unfair and undermined the credibility which I presumed you brought to the debate. I thought we were debating the issue of this page's existence, not your personal annoyance at 172. FearÉIREANN 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not been unfair to him - he is free to respond I am no final judge. If I have been unfair, he can easily refute what I have said. I don't think he can, because this is all a matter of record and it shows up in your history pages. If my assertions are grossly unfair - I will certainly apologise - that is a promise. I always apologise when I'm wrong. (Sending you a message is not spamming this is true - spamming is when you send that same message to 25 othetr people to pack a AfD deabte.) jucifer 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary User:172, you have obfuscated endlessly, refused compromise and refused to answer questions. As if to prove this point beyond doubt, you again falsify the nature of the actions. This is the post on your talk page you describe as "accusations":

"Hello, there. I was reading through the AFD on List of Dictators, and I noticed your definition of Original Research seems a bit flawed. You claim the process of determining who is a dictator is original research. That seems like quite a stretch. You have to keep in mind the *historical* origins of NOR. It was originally developed because people were posting crackpot physics theories on wikipedia. NOR has since been expanded beyond physics theories, but in general, simple classification is NOT original research. In the case of classifying dictators, you would be using pre-existing material in your decision making process (relevant quotes, polls, media coverage, etc), hence it is not original research. Also, you REALLY need to archive your talk page.the1physicist 20:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

And as is obvious I not only am not trying to change the subject, but after I detail you patern of malpractice, I return to the main issue and again refute your justification for deleting this page, age again (as you did to the1physicist I note no explaination of your policy. jucifer 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is of absolutely no relevance to this debate. We are discussing whether to delete List of modern day dictators, not users on Wikipedia. Take your complaints about individual voters elsewhere. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My page reflects my views. Articles don't represent my views but NPOV (which why though I think Bush is a bozo I still revert attacks on him!). As to presidential gaffes (obviously you are sore that you didn't get your way there) either a person said something and it was regarded as a gaffe in public reaction, or they didn't. It boils down to facts. Whether someone is a dictator or not cannot be measured by something they said, but involves using subjective criteria on what you think of them. It is fundamentally different. FearÉIREANN 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the amount of discussion on this page, don't you think an explanation of your vote is warranted? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: wait a minute My vote is the way it stands, I used my discretion and I voted keep. Why that is a problem, I do not know. I am not going to ask you questions, I voted keep because I thought it was the approriate choice. I didn't ask you any questions on your decision (not to say that I would care about them). You want to delete it, fine...I chose to keep You want an explanation? Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Thus I have no response, I see why some people call him a dictator, I used my discretion to vote keep and that should be enough. I hate to be rude, but the reason I am having such a combative attitude towards Zoe is because I know when I start debating, he'll keep shoving moot points down my throat, and will continue until the thing is kept or deleted or whatever. He's the type that has to win. I don't have time for this, and I don't like it when my discretion is questioned. I know that sounds like a little thing to get angry over: but it is not. The amiount of discussion on the page only fortifys my lone keep. Surely, reasons why it should be kept have been exhausted by now. There is no reason for me to add any argument so I can get bombarded by Zoe's. Hell, he is going to argue with me when I haven't even created a debate! I didn't come here for that, I cam here to cast a single vote, and if that is not enough explanation/implication that I thought it should be kept, I am sorry. Again, my argument in Lorem Ipsum.. Thanks, please do not leave me comments disagreeing with me on this, as I will replace that with the text from Lorum Ipsum as well. Thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pragmatic observation - the list is loaded with errors - often listing the date of legitimate election of people who later became dictators, people wh are not dictators within any meaning of the term, confusing dicators with the unelected heads of oligarchies - who are not dictators because they can't rule by decree and so on. The list, even on its own terms is a morass of factually inaccurate assertions. Stirling Newberry 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • A lot of people like Hitler, but as I asked you above, can you show me a policy statement of wikipedia that would lead youi do this conclusion? jucifer 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ruy Lopez 05:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you complian about this guys one word edit too Zoe? HaHa jucifer 07:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyhow guys its been fun but I gotta go down to St. Moritz for some white powder - if you catch my drift, and I hope we can all be freinds. I hope the right descision is made, but if not, there will still be lots of work to do on this subject. Cordially yours, User:Jucifer|(talk)
  • Keep Dictator is an established word that has a very definite meaning. Well sourced examples of what are ordinarily considered dictators would make an excellent encyclopedia entry. As an electronic, infinitely changeable reference work, the Wikipedia has the potential to be so much more then any other encyclopedia that has preceded it. We have lists of good movies, bad movies, people generally considered to be terrorists, etc. etc. etc. The process of vetting these entries to make sure that names do not arbitrarily get added is what makes the Wikipedia so great. If your favorite benevolent, head of a one-party state, gets included, cite your sources why he or she shouldn’t be on the list and let the process work. It might not work as fast as you like, but it’s a process. And if that really cheeses you off, then there are plenty of other websites that could use your attention just as well. --Easter Monkey 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties is that only those interested in lists will bother to maintain these lists. This is centralised and unwiki. If we must have this thing, it would be better to use a Category approach, which would ensure that (a) everyone interested in person X sees that X is declared to be a Dictator (b) discussion about this takes place where it should, on the talk page of the article about person X. Rd232 talk 14:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, both over categories and ..if we must... See also the vote on the Category Totalitarian dictators Wizzy…☎ 14:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have some serious problems with the article, and I can think more clearly if I try to articulate them rather than jump into Keep or Delete. First of all, I should say that I have a problem with the whole nature of lists on Wikipedia as well as in popular culture generally, where they often scarcely count as knowledge or even information but more as sound bites, and I don't think I've seen a good argument for them except when they are indisputable historical facts, e.g. list of British kings, Nobel Prize winners, and so on. I notice that in the breakdown of Wikipedia articles with the most hits, one of the top ones is List of French people. I won't even comment on such an absurd idea. Be that as it may (and clearly I differ on the value of lists from others on this page, for me the main issue with the dictators list isn't even whether it constitutes original research or not or is NPOV. It's rather that, even though the term "dictator" is meaningful in a general, everyday sort of way, in reality it means rather different things in different historical contexts, and lumping all of these dictators together without explaining those contexts and the reasons for including each one distorts the political and social reality and tends to encourage simple-minded thinking, which isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be doing. It seems clear that there is a huge difference between dictators who simply grew into or inherited a dictatorial position in some authoritarian state structure, dictators who usurped power from a constitutional republic or democracy, totalitarian dictators, and dictators who created a totalitarian dictatorship in the first place -- I'm sure that there are several other categories -- and, similarly, what it means to live in different dictatorships is quite different, depending on the nature of state power, the extent of countervailing powers, and various other factors. And it means something quite different to be a dictator as absolute ruler who by sheer will have thousands of people slaughtered and to be a dictator as the top dog in a bureaucratic dictatorship without such power. At different times in my life I have visited three different countries that legitimately count as dictatorships and had dictators -- one a Communist society, one a fascist dictatorship, and one an authoritarian constitutional monarchy -- but they operated quite differently from one another, and even though there is a sense in which the boss of each country was a dictator, the term obscures as much as it reveals, and putting them together on a list would really be distorting of the political reality. Furthermore, one could contest whether by definition the king in the constitutional monarchy was a dictator, even though if you knew anything about the society you would have to agree that he was. One way to think about this would be to ask ourselves, would be want to have a list of "rulers"? In that case we'd have to add George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Jacques Chirac to that list. But to have them on the same list with Stalin and Hitler would be kind of silly. There are lists of "national leaders" and "heads of state", but those can be defined objectively and bureaucratically. So it seems to me that, to keep a list of dictators on Wikipedia, there needs to be a stronger and clearer argument not only as to why, but as to what it actually means (which I guess is similar to those who say that it's inherently POV). It also seems to me that there would need to be a prior discussion as to the subcategories of dictators (e.g. those I mentioned above and some others) and what the criteria would be for allocating individuals to those subcategories. Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is daft, look at these precedents: "Category:Terrorists by nationality" and List of terrorists which have been around for years. Or List of films that have been considered the worst ever, or List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position or List of movie clichés by genre, and to be honest I can't see a material deifference between List of White supremacists and this one here. This article is top notch by comparison, much clearer definitions, this is just twisted apologia. Juicifer (I can't sign in here.)
White supremacists are proud of being called so, therefore the list is verifiable. 69 is silly but well-defined. "worst ever" is a documented thing. "Terrorist" is a militant acting deliberately against civilians, a clear cut def, regardless he is "liberator" or mentally ill. All these lists are sound, and why "dictator" is "top notch" compared to them beats me. mikka (t) 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This type of list only leads to endless debate, while adding almost nothing to the project. There's no inclusion criteria and there's far too much ambiguity. Carbonite | Talk 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Wizzy. Stifle 23:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per 172.--nixie 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we are fully capable of making sourced distinctions. If we can list neocons and christian religions, and make fine distinctions between which occupations are the bourgoise and which are the proletariat, we can handle this category. We have even managed to handle the controversial definition of human life in the abortion article.--Silverback 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, we cannot draft the kinds of list that you are giving as examples. No one here is saying that we can list "neocons?" Although there are some self-declared "neocons" who can thus be described as such, there are too few self-proclaimed "neocons" to justify drafting such a list. Show me such a list, and I will put it on VfD myself. No one here is advocating the use of the categories of "bourgeois" and "proletariat" states. (BTW, I have a strong aversion to the crude, instrumental Marxian notion of the state as the 'executive committee for managing the common affairs of the ruling class' in my work off Wikipedia.) Again, show me such a list, and I will put it on VfD myself. If indeed some misguided editor has started listing "bourgeois" and "proletariat" states, disregard for NPOV and NOR in one article does not make it right in another aritcle. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try List of people described as neoconservatives. In regards to bourgeois and proletariat, I was thinking of occupations rather than states. The distinctions drawn can get rather fine, when it comes to professionals, such as MDs, corporate managers and lawyers. I'm not aware of any lists in this area however. We cover controversial distinctions all the time. While the neocon list includes "described" in the title, I think that is understood in all such lists, since citations should be required, although perhaps those should be in the article specific to the figure, rather than in the list article. If individuals want to contest entries in the list, and there are citations and consensus for the mention in the individual entry, then that his where it should be contested and not in the list article. Of course, some entries may not have individual articles or have not been discussed in some other other, and it is appropriate to request sources on this list page.--Silverback 09:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will put dipute headings on list of neocons article. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't have the time to make the case for two VfDs at the same time; but in the next few days, I'll nominate it for deletion myself, unless someone beats me to it. I just found out that Mackensen addressed the same issues when he nominated List of conservatives for deletion, where the grounds for deletion are the same. As for "bourgeois occupations," any such reference in any article, let alone a list, should be deleted. I'm not aware of a Marxist literature on "bourgeois occupations." (The term sounds like a neologism-- and nonsense, as a reference to an "occpation" is not make to make sense not matter what definition of "bourgeoisie" one is working with.) 172 23:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • perhaps those should be in the article specific to the figure, rather than in the list article - Would a category not serve better than the List - the List being a hangover from when Wikipedia did not yet have Categories ? Wizzy…☎ 09:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue and Silverback Zeq 15:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no reason for deletion has been offered. The article is not inherently POV, it is merely inherently controversial; discussing examples of dictatorship is also crucial to our coverage of the topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason has been offered? Regarding whether or not the list is crucial to coverage of the topic, see Jeremmy Shapiro's comments explaining how the list probably serves more to give a misleading picture of political reality than it reveals. Further, Jtdirl, Wizzy, Colipon, John Kenney and I, along with a handful of other editors here, I have provided a plethora of examples of leaders who fall into a gray area, and thus either way their inclusion or exclusion here is on the basis of the POV judgment calls of individual Wikipedia editors. If you do not remember a reason for deletion being stated, you need to take another look at the discussion threads. On a personal note, I have come across your work on articles related to the Federalist Papers; so, I know that you are quite a bright student of political science and political thought. Given your level of sophistication, I expect that you will be able to understand some of our concerns. 172 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or else move to user name space. — Instantnood 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 172, John Kenney, and Zoe (ah, such company to keep). See also my deletion nomination for List of conservatives, in which a number of the same issues were addressed. Mackensen (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You could have List of people described as dictators I suppose, but then you'd have to qualify each one and I think you'd end up with nearly every 'leader' on the planet ;) Besides, it would probably still be original research. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-But limit to leaders who are currently in office, or were in office after 2000 in least, and have a source for each name.(Or can I not vote as I commented earlier?)--T. Anthony 04:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, if you mean that you've stated "keep" in bold twice, remove one, so as your vote is not accidentally counted twice. 172 06:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah thanks for making me check. I didn't really think I had, but I wouldn't have checked if you hadn't said anything. (I checked, all I'd said before was comment so you must be seeing things)--T. Anthony 07:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for checking. Now, regarding the substance of your comments earlier, first, this list shows no sign of becoming a list of contemporary leaders. The author of the list appears to have included the 16th century in the domain of his research project; and 16th century entries are still listed. Second, you are mistaken in assuming that the removal of leaders who are not currently in power will mask the huge POV and NOR problems that got this article on AfD. The classification of contemporary leaders is just as often a murky POV judgment call as it is for less recent historical figures. Third, you seem to be basing your comments on the common misunderstanding conflating the term "modern" with "contemporary." Modern does not mean recent. On no non-arbitrary and NPOV basis can one make the case for the removal of removal of 16th century historical figures from the list of "modern day dictators," as the term "modern" arguably refers to historical figures going as far back in time as the 16th century. If the list is kept, there will be no basis to stop users from uploading their original research on leaders dating from as long ago as the Italian Renaissance, as there long-established arguments that begin the "modern " era in the 16th century or even in the late 15th century. Among historians, the term "modern" is one of the most debated, contested, controversial in their lexicon. No consensus has been established on the meaning of modern, just as no consensus has been established on the meaning of the term dictator. Some historians begin the modern era with the events following Bartholomew Diaz's rounding of cape in the late 15th century. Others begin the modern era with the Italian Renaissance. I know some historians who are among the smaller group of scholars who argue that the modern era begins with the Protestant Reformation. More often, historians argue that the modern era begins with the French Revolution. Meanwhile, many medievalists have long rejected the term modern, arguing that it is a construction based on horribly simplistic understanding of the period regarded as "medieval"—another term that many of them reject. More recently, historians associated with the currents of poststructuralism, postmodernism, and postcolonailism since the 1970s have often questioned the meaningfulness of the concept of the modern era, rather than arguing about when the modern era began. The questions of what the modern era is and when it began still lead to many heated and even emotional polemics between historians and scholars in other fields, especially as some members of the growing area studies departments in U.S. universities (particularly Islamic and East Asian studies) argue that established Western understandings of the "modern" era in historiography are loaded with ethnocentrism-- and may even be tinged with old assumptions that are "orientalist" or even racist. (I do not go so far myself, but I note their concerns. I generally fall into the group associating the modern era with the period following the French Revolution.) Given these many contentions in the historiography, even the periodization of the list is going to be inherently POV, based on an arbitrary POV judgment call regarding exactly which leaders were "modern.") 172 07:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I doubt you would fight a revert war because a well sourced entry happened to be a century or two too early to be considered modern by your definition. If dates are included, the reader could make his own judgement, and consider only those as modern as suits his purposes or interests. I can see valid arguments for dating it to the spread of the printing press, or too the time of the steam power, or whatever. Just because there isn't one right answer for every purpose, doesn't mean this article would not be useful.--Silverback 08:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you are correct; I would not fight a revert war because an entry happened to be too early to be considered modern by my understanding. I have just as little business pushing my POV and orginal research in articles as you or any other editor. If the only choice is between one editor's POV original research and another editor's POV original research, the article itself is the problem, not the editors, meaning that the only workable solution to the problem is putting up dispute headings and listing the article on VfD-- hence the fact that I have been working on the AfD as opposed to editing the list so that it conforms to my POV instead of another user's POV. (Unlike other editors, I understand that POV and original research must be weeded out because it is outside the scope of writing encyclopedic material on Wikipedia, even if I believe it to be correct. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR mean that what could be one's best written work off Wikipeida is insidious POV and original research on Wikipedia.) At any rate, your standard for allowing the reader to "make his own judgment" is hopelessly unencyclpedic. One could argue that we can allow anyone to upload his or her personal opinions in the articles, allowing the readers to evaluate them critically on their own-- a great principle we all should follow off Wikipedia. However, this is not going to fly in an encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's three core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and verfibility. On a final note, the dating is hardly the major problem with this list. It's just one of the many inherent problems here noted over and over again by many editors on this page. 172 09:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no 15th century enries. There are no 16th century entries. There are no 17th century entries. There are no 18th century entries. There are 5 19th century entries. All the rest are 20/21st century. (Just for the record User:172). Change the to name to "List of dictators (modern usage)" or even better just "List of dictators" with a sub-heading type redirect to Roman dictators if you like.
  • As you yourself conceded there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NPOV or WP:V. You further concede above that (even with you strange take on NOR) there are some people at least who can be described as dictators without violating NOR. You dual grounds for deleting this article have evaporated - you yourself concede that NPOV NOR and WP:V are no impediment to making a "list of dictators" - you appear to want the list deleted on grounds the posiblilty of OR/POV (which you dare not express - since you know that is no ground. You have ignored by rebuttals so far leaving your miinions to try haplessly on your

behalf.

  • The fact that you have not even attempted to justify your take on NOR in terms of a wikipedia policy statement implies that you are well aware that it holds no water. Since you have conceded points which show that there can be grounds for deletions here on the basis of your nomination - your only proper course of action would be to change your vote to keep. This is what a man of principle would do - so I have no doubt what you now do. jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhetorical Questions Isn't it POV to remove the list? Some people are pushing the point of view that there are no dictators or that it is impossible to apply the definition of dictator to anyone. That's a POV, isn't it? Logophile 12:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. They are saying that it is impossible to create a list because too many people (eg, Mugabe, the Shah of Iran, etc) are regarded by some people as dictators but not by others. It is better to discuss the allegations of dictatorship on their own page, not make a list where only a handful would be unchallenged but vast numbers would be subject of POV edit wars. Even the name is unworkable: is 'modern day' being defined in the way historians describe it, or the way it is commonly understood. With guaranted edit wars ad infinitum over content, confusion over title, etc the list idea here is unworkable. Bizarrely, as Zoe shows below, even some sane people actually think Hitler wasn't a dictator (they are nuts in my view). Categorising someone as a dictator is inherently POV. It involves making a value judgment about someone's leadership, and balancing issues like context, cultural traditions, methodology of coming to power, usage of power, etc. (eg, if a state has a long standing tradition of military seizures of power and abuses of power, and a new military leader seizes power but doesn't abuse it as much as his precedessors and creates some form of weak democracy, does one compare him to western standards, by which he was a dictator, or his own state's standards, against which he might not be seen as a dictator?) In Chile, for example, some people on the right called Allende a dictator. Most people categorise Pinochet as a dictator. Put either in and you are guaranteed an eternal edit war here on those names alone. It makes more sense to describe people's rule on their own pages, or the pages of their country, rather than hang tags around their neck that rely on personal POV and put them, out of context, in a list. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree it is definitely better to discuss the allegations of dictatorship on their own pages. This page should result in little discussion at all. If someone wants to challenge a name on this pages list, they should go to the specific page for the entry and challenge there where the editors have more specific knowledge and probably have already decided the issue. This page should rely upon the specific articles for all figures major enough to have their own articles. This page could also minor entries that don't have articles, but those should be sourced here, or on the page where they might have been mentioned as part of some percieved group. So for the most part this page should be a rather uncontroversial accumulation of the collective work of wikipedia on the various dictators.--Silverback 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - keep flags for WP:POV and factual accuracy, but otherwise keep it. The fact that some people dispute whether or not they are actually dictators is irrelevant. After all, we have Al Qaeda, which in fact means "the base" and is not a terrorist organisation at all, yet it is described as such, with enormous factual inaccuracies that are primarily being spouted by US government sources to try to justify the war. But things like that are still useful sources of information. If we get rid of this, then we are obviously using our own POV to decide that we can't have something like this. The number of comments and such in itself asserts notoriety. Why not just clean it up a little? Controversial topic, yes, but they are sometimes the best ones. Zordrac 13:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The problem is that any list of dictators would imply that dictatorship is a black and white issue: one is either a dictator or not a dictator. In practice, however, there is a huge grey area of leaders who have some dictatorial powers or have done some things which may be considered dictatorial, but otherwise respect a certain degree of democracy and rule of law. If you place such leaders on the list, you are entering the realm of POV. And if you don't place them on the list, you are supporting the opposite POV that they are not dictators. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add header to ease editing

edit

Sorry if I'm going against some sort of a Wikipedia policy. I move that we move this to an immediate vote. Colipon (T) 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's going on as we write. Those people who put votes of keep or delete up above are... well, voting. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is what we're doing. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So Zoe, have you revised your view that to call Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot dictators is POV because "to some people, they're heros"?jucifer 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to Robert Mugabe, Mswati III, George W. Bush and Zoe's point becomes clear. You picked the names, Zoe replied on principle. Wizzy…☎ 06:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha Ha Ha! Suberb rebuttal - you actually impliciltly concede my point (that there are some dictators, therefore they can be listed) so yes, that really is a knock-out arguement. Pow! jucifer 09:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jucifer, You and I might be able to agree some names. Zoe (for example) might not agree to our list. You re-iterate your point. I re-iterate my reply (please check the talk page of the subject article). Wizzy…☎ 09:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy please! My point was simply that there are some dictators that can be so described without violating NPOV (check the policy - it very minor opinions can be should be completly ignored under NPOV)! As I have pointed out, if this is true, there can be a list. The fact that Mugabe Mswati and Bush can't be added without violating NPOV only means that they can't be added to the list. For you own benefit, I think you should state here (in a scentence without diversionary examples) your ground for the deletion of the list: jucifer 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See my delete entry above. If there is any disagreement on any entry by some people, does that mean that they also cannot be added to the list ? Or is it just our list of favourites ? Wizzy…☎ 10:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wizzy, the NPOV policy means that all mainstrem views are given eaqual airtime, minor views are mentioned, and far-out views are not. Even User:172 has admitted that there can be a list of NPOV "dictators". Are you still arguing that it is POV to say that Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot etc are dictators? jucifer 10:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
jucifer, I think the best place to battle out Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot is on their respective pages. Interested editors are watching, some historians are present. I might even be persuaded to shift from Delete to Weak Delete if this page became a Category instead. But my problem is not with Hilter, Stalin, Pol Pot. It is with Mugabe, Mswati and Bush - that is where the POV pitches in. You and I agree to leave out Mswati. Did we ask Zoe ? Must we ask her as well ? Wizzy…☎ 10:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I imfer that you now understand why it isn't POV to call Hitler a dictator. Ah the progress! If you don't wan't Mugabe on the list - you can remove him - no need to delete the list. This is far better than a category since it is visible in the "what links here page" for anyone who cares and is capable of nuance and annotation. Why not have both? I they can be categorised they can be listed. Give it some thought anyhoo, I gotta go. Keep well. jucifer 10:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Superb rebuttal, Wiz. FearÉIREANN 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not voting, it's a directed consensus finding discussion. It's pretty similar to voting, and has similar objectives, but is not quite the same thing. (voting is also a consensus finding method, but one that is not used on wikipedia as such, much to the confusion of many) :-) Kim Bruning 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually voting is regularly used and specific votes (called "votes") have been called numerous times on numerous pages. FearÉIREANN 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And these were against policy, failed, or both. Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

Hmm, is there a more general and neutral word than dictator? I'm looking for the meaning that says a person who "rules alone". Autocrat? Maybe. Any idea? Kim Bruning 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is rather uniquely useful for its brevity. If it is to be softened, perhaps it is with another word such as "alleged", although that would appear too wishywashy for the likes of Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. I notice that for some reason this term arouses accusations of being too POV to deal with, while many of the articles openly discuss the seeming similarly POV distinguishing assessment of personality cults, without much conflict. --Silverback 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Since the page Dictator give a pretty clear definition of what a dictator is, it's possible to create a list of figures. wikipediatrix 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then try classifying the following leaders who have been mentioned on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. Each of the said leaders has been described as a dictator. Others, however, argue otherwise. Regardless of whether or not they are included in the list, the list is POV. To include them in the list is POV. To not include them in the list means that Wikipedia is implying that they are not dictators. There is no way this list can be kept up in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 172 06:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the there are credible sources that make the case, even though controversial, they can be included, although perhaps they should be qualified per the contrary views. The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. The distinctions would be informative. I'd rather have a proliferation of distinctions or sections on the one page, where they can be seen in contrast and comparison rather than on replicating figures on multiple lists on different pages. Musharraf is a military dictator who came to power in a coup. He may lack the state to violate the rights and impose the control that a Xiaoping or Castro does. But when one acts as these people have, it is only natural that some authoritative sources will make an argument that they are dictators. No harm and possibly a lot of good has been done by catagorizing them as dictators. Perhaps some of these figures will even be motivated to earn their way off the list.--Silverback 08:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list of dictators could have a separate section for those leading authoritarian, non-democratic one party states, and another section for majoritarian elected leaders who are much criticised for their authoritarian populist violation of rights, and destructive mismanagement of their economies. Your cure is worse than the disease. Coming up with a taxonomy for different kinds of regimes (majoritarian, authoritarian, single-party, etc.) adds an even more problematic layer of POV, as there is a lot more disagreement over taxonomies for different kinds of regimes than there is on the definition of dictator. 172 08:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More categories and distinctions are time tested way of dealing with complexity, which is the real issue here, not POV. People working together in good faith can agree on the what definitions are being used at any given time. Since our reliance on sources means that material will be coming from places using different definitions of dictator, or whatever terms we are dealing with in wikipedia, it means that we have to qualify things. If some source is to call Mugabe as a dictator and have any credibility and informative content beyond mere name calling, then they will have to have justified and qualified their assertion, i.e., "I call Mugabe a dictator because he has these characteristics that are dictatorial such as acknowledging few moral or legal restraints on his power, etc...". Now, maybe you still don't think Mugabe should be called a dictator by your definition of the word, but at least you know what was meant by the person who did use it, and perhaps even agree that the other person, has in good faith, properly applied their definition of dictator to the facts, even if you still don't like or agree with their definition.--Silverback 08:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why can't it be renamed List of individuals that are generally considered to have been dictators or some such wording? We have a List of films that have been considered the worst ever, a list of video games considered the worst ever, and even a List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever and that one just survived a VfD. Can someone please explain to me why someone would want to defend Adolf Hitler more vehemently then Gigli?!? --Easter Monkey 07:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing what "generally" means is POV in and of itself. If we draft a list of leaders "considered by some to be dictators," the criterion for inclusion is so loose and vague that just about any leader can be included. 172 07:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then get rid of the "generally". It seems to be working on the movies listing, there are a number of editors over there that rigorously apply the caveat that I now see on my edit screen: Please make sure your changes do not violate any copyright and are based on verifiable sources. Each movie gets a blurb about why it's on the list and each entry is thoroughly vetted and verified so that the standards of credible, verifiable sources have been used. Sure, it'll take work, but looking through the history of this page, there seems to be more then enough folks interested in making sure that the standard of not pushing pov are met? Right? --Easter Monkey 07:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. What may be workable on articles on movies may not work with history and politics. The problem here is the possibility of users creating bias through the selection of certain verifiable sources over others, possibly based on whether or not they conform to their own POV. There also the huge liklihood of bias in that sources that disagree with classification of certain leaders are much harder to cite. They often just don't use the term; and it's impossible to cite what a source may be implying but not stating explicitly. 172 08:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That can be avoided by detailing what sources can be used. For example List of purported cults, although permanently in POV dispute, does that. The word dictator can be misused, but I see little evidence that's ever stopped anything. Neo-conservative is often misused but there is a List of people described as neoconservatives. Fascist is routinely misused, but there is a List of fascists. I'm not sure why dictator is any more debatable then things like "worst", "best", "Fascist", "cult", etc that already exist in list forms.--T. Anthony 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There have been self-describing fascists and neoconservatives, so matters are not quite the same. To describe some people as fascists and neoconservatives is not POV, so long as the classification is based on their professed affiliations. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of vigilance on those articles, with many POV classifications slipping in that are not based on self-definitions, thus making the difference between those two articles and an inherently POV entry like list of modern day dictators somewhat unclear at first glance. The list of neoconservatives, in particular, has been broadened to such a great extent beyond those who use the term to refer to themselves (such as Irving Kristol and his associates) that I favor redirecting the article until it is cleaned up. Unfortunately, other articles may have problems similar to the ones found in this list; but we cannot allow deteriorating standards on those other others to serve as an excuse to lower the standards when creating new entries. Regarding the List of purported cults, I have not looked at the article, but judging from the title, it may not warrant deletion for the reasons emphasized on this VfD thread. While a comparisons may not be too helpful, as it is probably best to decide these matters on a case-by-case basis anyway, the description of a "cult" is easier to work with because there is always a large volume of literature on whether or not a certain organization is a cult coming from both sides of the debate. In the West there are large communities of experts regularly publishing large volumes of work monitoring and classifying cults. The term "dictator," however, is mostly used loosely as a pejorative, and never with anywhere the kind of rigor that some attempt to bring to bear in the classification of cults. 172 11:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncertain where you live that "dictator" is used in a looser fashion then "cult." To me dictator is pretty much just "a single ruler with absolute authority and lacking legal or constitutional restraints." A cult is often "any religion I personally dislike" or "any religion that fits one sociologists check off list." I can find just as many research groups willing to call a leader a dictator as I could ones willing to call a group a cult. More, probably, because the term has been Less misused then cult.--T. Anthony 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to usage in informal conversations. I'm referring to the specialized professional publications. There are groups that try to use the term cult with some rigor, such as the Cultic Studies Review and ICSA's Cult Information Service. This is way outside my area of expertise, as I am not a social psychologist. But I was quickly able to find a list of links on cultic studies on a University of Calgary website. [6] The term "dictator," however, is not subject to the same kind of academic debate because it is not used as an ideal-type by scholars, as it has little value as an ideal-type. The reason is that the usage of the term dictator is often not going to be too revealing in the end-- a matter that only Jeremy Shapiro has really touched on so far. (I suggest that you take a look at his comment as well.) 172 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well in the dictionary, after the Roman version, it states: "b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively."[7] From Scholar Google there is the following on dictatorships and dictators.[8],[9],[10],[11], [12]--T. Anthony 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Before wading through this debate I would have thought that the reason that the term dictator hasn't been subjected to the same kind of academic debate as some other terms is that it is well enough defined such that a native english speaker would understand what it means. Additionally, I would have thought that it would be a matter of common sense when coming up with a list of folks that have been/are considered dictators. That a number of world leaders have been dictators is a matter of historical fact, it says so on the individual pages dedicated to each (well, most of them anyway), what's wrong with listing them all together for a single point of reference? --Easter Monkey 11:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to claim that the usage is a "matter of common sense"; it's another thing to look at the specific histories in question. Many leaders called "dictators" by their oppoents defy easy classification: among the countless examples of such leaders are the ones that have been brought up on this page: Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III. 172 12:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The word dictator is used in the scholarly pages linked to on your own page.Paul Hensel,ICPSR, Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign relations, Eldis, The Brookings Institute, and others.--T. Anthony 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is, mostly in passing, with the usage not being discussed in much detail. If anyone looks hard enough, he will be able to dig up some article calling a leader he dislikes described a dictator. Meanwhile, the less broad usage of the term will be lost because writers who don't regard certain leaders regarded by others as dictors aren't addressing the issue of why they don't use the term. Giving users a green light to push POV, so long as they try hard enough to bias the selection of the sources so that the citations fit their POV, is not the way to raise encyclopedic standards on Wikipedia. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So....why not keep the list, and then take each of the entries on a case by case basis? (I perfer to look at things on a more case-by-case basis. Your words...) I've not taken the time to go to each of these individual pages to check for sure, but I would think that there would be (I would hope that there would be) a healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator to each one of those in turn. Thus, by virtue of the fact that each is under consideration for the application of the term dictator on their own pages, why can't we then list them all in one place? --Easter Monkey 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV judgment calls are not supposed to be determined by "healthy discussion as to the validity of applying the term dictator" among Wikipedia editors-- original research in no uncertain terms. I recommend considering the leaders other users and I keep on mentioning as examples (Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Alberto Fujimori, Hugo Chavez, Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Robert Mugabe, and Mswati III) in order to understand how murky the classification can be-- allowing any Wikipedia editor to exclude or include just about any leader of he is clever enough with the craft and rhetoric involved in the construction of the classification. In the end Wikipedia is best served by faithfully and rigidly following NPOV and NOR policies, not circumventing them creatively because certain Wikipedia editors just happen to enjoy drafting politically oriented lists. 172 13:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said what if this were changed to "modern day rulers for life." There are several rulers who do self-describe as presidents or rulers for life.--T. Anthony 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a pretty long post on the problems associated with using the term "modern." Please take a look at it... Yes, there are presidents-for-life, such as Saparmurat Niyazov. No new list needs to be created because there already is one in the president for life article. 172 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_modern_day_dictators&oldid=1264337813"