Talk:List of dictators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Possible recreation under an NPOV title?

I understand why this page has been deleted. But the content was extremely useful, and it seems to me that only the title was really a problem. Would it be possible to recreate this page under a title such as "List of unelected leaders", obviously with a disclaimer to exclude hereditary monarchs? It wouldn't include everyone on the old Dictators list, but it would be of significant interest. If need be, there could be another page called "List of presidents-for-life", too. And "List of self-created monarchs". As far as I can see, none of these lists would involve a value judgement. -- TinaSparkle 12:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that this article does not exist. I did try to suggest that we break down the list into constituent parts to hopefully avoid the POV problems but it wasn't supported here and eventually the list was deleted. One of the problems that was raised surrounds the Soviets who it was claimed did not have a single head of Government. Though I think that's a pretty weak argument, it was enough to create POV problems that could again arise in a List of heads of executive governments for life but I'd be willing to try and make it work. MLA 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I think the Soviet argument is very weak. Even if one accepts it, that doesn't invalidate the point of a list. I'd be willing to try and make it work, too. I wouldn't mind hearing some more opinions before we start, though. If anyone has any other suggestions for possible titles that might avoid POV problems, I'd be very glad to hear them. ("List of absolute rulers in the 20th/etc century"? Would include some monarchs, though only a few. I don't think that's a problem.) -- TinaSparkle 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that many leaders who have been considered dictators are also "elected", in elections of varying validity. Most African strong men, for instance, have periodic presidential elections. They just either forbid opposition or cheat. The category would be problematic. john k 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus, lots of unelected heads of state are not dictators - the head of state in say, the country where I live is unelected, but she has no real power and dictates exactly squat. Nobody would ever refer to her as a dictator. What it really needs is just reliable sources that allow us to verify the person is a dictator - it's very clear that everyone in favour of deleting this article didn't properly apply those policies. WilyD 14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What reliable sources could there possibly be on who is a dictator and who is not? The term is an epithet, it has no clear meaning, and it is not used by scholars. john k 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is, of course, that it mandates the removal of every sentence in Wikipedia. As for scholars, a quick search of JSTOR gets 13000 papers with Dictator in it. Here is a scholarly paper identifying some guy as a dictator, for instance. Here is a second one. The term is used by scholars and is verifiable from reliable sources. The term is not more an epithet than serial killer - youmight judge someone negatively because they are the thing, but the term itself is fairly neutral. This article could be contraversial is most emphatically not a reason to prevent it's creation. WilyD 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between casually using the term "dictator," which is fine, and making up a list as though there is a clear definition. I wrote carelessly before. The word "dictator" is, of course, used by scholars, but it isn't a technical term. It has no precise meaning. john k 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this isn't a technical dictionary - we have all sort of articles on things that may not be techincally defined - see Racism or Black people or Art - again, you seem to be raising a non-issue and then drawing a conclusion that contradicts the main foundational policies of Wikipedia - it's very hard to see why. WilyD 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This list should exist, and as long as there is a specific criteria POV shouldn't be a problem, surely unelected heads of state would be appropriate—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Major Hellfire (talk • contribs). Why was this list deleted when the results were 11-4 in favor of keeping? Vints 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent question. I think that deletion is perhaps the right substantive result, but it doesn't look like proper procedure was followed here. Doc Glasgow, who closed the delete debate, appears to be gone from wikipedia, so I'm not sure we'll get an answer on this. It's weird that nobody noticed this before, though. john k 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, articles are not required to have NPOV titles - articles are named per the manual of style, and because it's impossible and stupid to have NPOV titles it simply isn't done. Allegations of gravity, Earth if it exists, The philosophical school that is sometimes refered to as Nihilism, Triscuts a trademark of the Nabisco corporation and so on are all terrible article titles. WilyD 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as being an extremely good point and possibly conclusive, especially in combination with your point above about reliable sources and verification, WilyD. Just because a subject is controversial, anyway, doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't try to cover it; if there's one thing Wikipedia has shown, it's that nearly everything is controversial. There seems to be a consensus here that this list was worth having, and there seemed to be a majority vote in the previous discussion in favour of it too. Does anyone have the power to remove protection and recreate the page? -- TinaSparkle 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there was a consensus that the list was worth having. but there does not seem to have been a consensus to delete it. As to WilyD's point, I don't think the issue is an NPOV title. It's that the title suggests content which would be inherently POV. How do we decide whether or not, say, Félix Houphouet-Boigny was a dictator? And who are we to make such judgments, either way? The project is fatally flawed from the start, I think, except when referring to things like people who were explicitly military dictators. john k 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We apply WP:V and WP:RS to decide, the same way we decide every other fact in every other article. There's no difference. How do we decide if Gravity is a Force or Brazil is a country in South America? WP:V and WP:RS - no more, no less. WilyD 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, to quote Wikipedia:Attribution: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Vints 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The point is that this article can only possibly represent one side's POV - the POV that somebody was a dictator. By including someone on a list of dictators, we (i.e. wikipedia) are saying that that person was a dictator. Even if this can be attributed, there remains the problem that it is ignoring any arguments that may exist that the person was not a dictator, and that while we can easily judge whether someone has been called a dictator, it is much much more difficult to determine if someone is generally judged to be a dictator. Furthermore, unlike gravity, which is a scientific term with a clearly understood meaning that is used in a clear and consistent way by more or less all scholars in the relevant field, the term "dictator" is not a formal term of political science in any way. To the extent that it is used, it is as an epithet, and it has no clear formal meaning at all. There is no way, in these circumstances, to create an NPOV list of who is a "dictator." Some examples:

• This page claims that many French people saw Charles de Gaulle as a dictator.
• Here we see someone calling George W. Bush a dictator.

Do we really want to open the doors to this kind of thing? What are the criteria? What counts as a "reliable published source" on who is a dictator? The whole thing is a total mess. john k 20:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Self-published websites of individuals are not realiable sources. WilyD 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but one could probably find a published book that calls Bush a dictator. Anyway, what I want to know are what reliable sources exist on the subject of a technical definition of dictator that we can apply, and what sources discuss the issue of whether a particular leader is a "dictator." I doubt we would find many reliable sources on either subject. john k 21:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whether such sources exist or not. Of course, that isn't the reason the article was deleted - any entry that isn't verifiable by a reliable source should be excised - but that makes this no different from any other legitimate article. WilyD 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We, of course, have no business applying some criteri(a)(on) to determine whether someone's a dictator - that's grade A OR (and I'd definitely reject it). But if someone could find one or more reliable sources identifying at least two people as dictators, would you support the recreation of the article? WilyD 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

can you really not see why any attempt to recreate this article will inevitably end up a total mess? The article oughtn't to have been deleted, because it didn't follow proper procedure, but it's a good thing t hat it was. I don't see why we should create an article which is virtually guaranteed to be bad. Perhaps if I restored the talk history of the page that might help. john k 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I've never been sold on the This article is hard to write, so it shouldn't exist argument. There are tons of pages that are hard to write, and likely to cause problems - Ethics of eating meat, Social effect of evolutionary theory, Racism in the LGBT community, Media and sexual orientation, Introduction to M-theory, et cetera, et cetera - an unwillingness to write articles that are difficult significantly degrades the value of Wikipedia. WilyD 09:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

WilyD, the above response is a straw man. John Kenney did not say "This article is hard to write, so it shouldn't exist." Please reread his comments carefully, if you honestly in good faith have trouble grasping them. 172 | Talk 11:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've re-read them, and it seems clear to me that's the only argument the anti-article crowd has that makes any sense. The This article violates policy X doesn't make sense in the context of it not violating policy X. WilyD 16:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page history. I'd suggest anyone wanting to recreate the page wade through it a bit. john k 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be restored. It was an embarrassment, a waste of time, and perhaps the most POV article on wikipedia before it was rightly deleted. Virtually every single leader in history has been described as a dictator by sources that meet wikipedia's WP:V guidelines, from Abraham Lincoln to Vladimir Putin. That is because, in a modern context, it is not a title but a subjective assessment of little value. Unless all these people, ie Putin and Lincoln, can be included - which would make the page redundant & ridiculous anyway - it should remain deleted. There is a page called Dictator. Nothing more needs to be added to that. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen's comment above hits the nail on the head. We are not going to repeat the mistake of creating this list again. This is no longer a matter of serious discussion, no group of users can form a consensus to disregard NPOV and encyclopedic principles, and one cannot do this list in a NPOV and encyclopedic manner. 172 | Talk 11:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this statement is not only that it's false, but that it's patently rediculous. No users are suggesting disregarding NPOV - what's being pointed out is that this article presents no more problem with WP:NPOV than any other - It's actually fairly easy to write this article and keep it entirely within WP:NPOV. The issue is that the article needs to follow WP:RS and WP:V - but every article has to follow WP:V and WP:RS - this aricle isn't special in that regard. WilyD 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We've been there. Debated this. Concluded the debate many times. You write "It's actually fairly easy to write this article and keep it entirely within WP:NPOV". The existence of the article for over year in past, followed by its rightful removal after a barrage of complaints of inherent POV and disasterous timewasting edit wars, indicates that it obviously isn't easy to write. That is because "dictator" in modern terms is incommensurable. No such title exists beyond vague subjective claims. Therefore a "list of dictators" must include Abraham Lincoln in order to meet your defined guidelines of WP:RS and WP:V. You are asking to restore a page that lists Abraham Lincoln as a dictator. If that doesn't illustrate the inherent problems, then I don't know what more we can do to help you.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 19:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but the debates have shown that the delete side has no basis for their argument. If we delete articles because they're commonly plauged by edit wars, there'd be no United States, no Muhammad, no Evolution articles. As for your proposal that we disregard WP:V and WP:RS and instead engage in rampant original research to build articles, I cannot accept that. I will note that WP:NPOV also says that views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views - so the problem you attempt to raise does not actually exist. Look, I'm not sure why people get so angry just because I suggest we use common sense and policy to determine which articles should exist, rather than bias and guesses. WilyD 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your answers bear no relation to what I wrote. I didn't say we disregard WP:V and WP:RS. I didn't say this page should be deleted because it is plagued by edit wars. I said, as people have said many times, "dictator" in modern terms is incommensurable. Therefore entirely subjective and thus it is inherently POV to carry a list of names under that title as my Lincoln example (described as a dictator by reliable sources) illustrates. "Common sense and policy" already deleted this page once because the page failed to meet the minimal standards of a wikipedia article. The edit wars were as a result of these failures, not the cause for the deletion. The article was no more appropriate than a List of Fools.

So (1) - You say it is easy to write : Obviously it hasn't been. (2) - You compare this page to Muhammad and Evolution : All encylopedias carry articles on Muhammad and Evolution, yet none carry a List of dictators article, for the reasons we outline? (3) You describe some scenario where editors use verifiable sources to describe a leader as a "dictator": Here are some verifiable sources that describe Abraham Lincoln as a dictator [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Every argument you have against those ensuring that the article is not recreated is either a straw man argument, or is easily disproved and rebuffed by evidence or research. Please move on. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both sides have good points. Maybe it's possible to do like French Wikipedia? They have a list of 20th century dictators (also considered for deletion) fr:Dictateurs du XXe siècle. Then we don't have to consider older leaders when few countries were democracies, like Abraham Lincoln or European monarchs. Vints 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is then appropriate to include Lincoln on a list of dictators - I'm not sure why you expect me to think your biases and opinions form a better basis for an encyclopaedia than verifiable information from reliable sources, presented in a neutral point of view manner. WilyD 15:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an even worse idea, and when a similar page was created (by POV mongers) here it was also deleted following a barrage of complaints. Which leaders of the 20th century went by the title "Dictator of..."? "Dictator" in modern terms is not a title, it is an entirely subjective opinion of little value. You write "both sides have good points", I have yet to read anything that approached a point let alone a good point from those wishing to restore this article, which a real encyclopedia wouldn't touch with a barge pole. People who originally constructed this article did it either (a) to slander various political figures they didn't like or (b) were naive and under the impression that a dictator is some sort of serious title / term / description. More experienced editors who knew a bit more about these matters interjected and the page was eventually rightfully removed. This cycle should not be repeated. I agree with all the responses above by User:John Kenney and sigh myself in sympathy. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote Encarta In modern times those who have assumed sole power over the state have been called dictators; notable among these have been Miguel Primo de Rivera and Francisco Franco of Spain, Józef Pilsudski of Poland, António de Oliveira Salazar of Portugal, Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union. Dictators have also come to prominence in Latin America, among them Juan Perón in Argentina, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Porfirio Díaz in Mexico, and Manuel Antonio Noriega in Panama - that real encyclopaedia has no problem labelling people as dictators. The unwilling to take on a challenging but important article is exactly why people will not see this as a real encyclopaedia. WilyD 15:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Listing a select few political figures who are widely accepted to be dictators is not the same as creating an exhaustive, definitive list of dictators. The former requires no debate since the selected figures meet all the common criteria and would not pose any particular challenges to the definition. The latter requires us to form a precise, neutral, and encyclopedic definition of dictator and a set of neutral criteria by which candidates for the label are rejected or accepted. I'm not opposed to using the label when it is called for, but it seems like avoiding an exhaustive list is the right decision. --Rumblegoose 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is going round in circles. I understand that this is a touchy topic, but it's not terribly helpful to get snarky or pull rank. Please don't assume that those of us who wish to restore this list in some acceptable form are necessarily POV-mongers or idiots. There was, in my opinion, considerable value in the content of the former list, though I appreciated and continue to appreciate the argument against the name. If the objection to the List of Dictators is that the word "dictator" is equivalent to "fool" and completely subjective, I am happy to accept that. Let's move this discussion on towards a constructive conclusion. Is there an argument against creating a number of pages under titles such as "List of unelected leaders excluding monarchs", "List of presidents/heads of elected governments for life", "List of self-created monarchs since 1500/1800", "List of absolute rulers in the 19th/20th/21st century", etc? These are just possibilities to get the ball rolling, of course. Any thoughts? -- TinaSparkle 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A list of "absolute rulers" is no less problematic. There are "unelected leaders" in all political systems and forms of government. The term may be understood to refer to appointed officials and professional civil servants and bureaucrats. There is a list of presidents for life. There is, if I am not mistaken, a list of self-proclaimed 'monarchs,' such as Bokassa in the Central African Republic. 172 | Talk 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "unelected leaders" would be understood to refer to bureaucrats, and surely such a deliberately contrary interpretation could be forestalled by an introductory paragraph defining the term as limited to heads of state or chief ministers of a government. Otherwise, "List of unelected heads of state" or "List of unelected heads of state and prime ministers" would presumably cover any possible confusion. There is already a category called "Leaders by coup", which would no doubt include many of these, but I think a list would be of value, too.

You're right that the President for life page includes a list of presidents for life already; apologies, I didn't see that. I can't find a list of self-proclaimed monarchs, though. I think this would be useful and potentially NPOV if it doesn't exist already. -- TinaSparkle 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even by limiting a list of "unelected leaders" to "heads of state or chief ministers of a government" you will still be lift with a list so broad and heterogeneous as to be meaningless. I think you have a vague idea of drafting a list of leaders in political systems that do not conform to contemporary Western ideals of liberal democracy. Categorizing leaders of different political systems is more complicated that you may realize. Does Gerald Ford go on your list? What about prime ministers who had never held elected office, but were appointed or nominated by heads of state, or were selected by parliament? On that note, does Dominique de Villepin go on your list? Or does any prime minister not directly elected by the public go on the list? You could say a prime minister in a Western liberal democracy is elected by parliament, and thus does not belong in your list. But if you want to be consistent with that line of reasoning, consider that the head of state or government in China is an 'elected' leader, chosen by the National People's Congress. What about leaders in semi-democratic systems based on restrictive suffrage? DF Malan, the architect of South African apartheid, and Ian Smith, the white-minority ruler of Zimbabwe, were not "unelected leaders." Your list also touches on major controversy when considering leaders elected in disputed elections, or elections mired in allegations of fraud or unfairness. In the end, there is no way of drafting the list you propose without becoming a place for Wikipedia editors to voice personal value judgments about various types of political systems. 172 | Talk 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, 172, and sorry I've taken so long to reply. You have, however, made some rather unfair assumptions about my own outlook and background here: I am not sat smugly judging the leaders of the world from the perspective of modern Western liberal democracy, and I have no intention of using any list to make value-judgements. And, as it happens, I know quite a bit about the complexity of political systems: just because I don't use my Wikipedia editorship to pull rank, you need not assume that I am underqualified to discuss this. I find many of the arguments against this list very compelling, and I am not arguing a fixed position. All I am exploring is whether it would be possible to devise a list of leaders who had enjoyed absolute power, or who had proclaimed themselves monarch, or similar. The former "List of dictators", though I accept it was fatally flawed, was actually extremely useful as a starting point for exploring the history and types of non-democratic leadership. A list called "unelected prime ministers/etc" would obviously include a codicil to the effect that prime ministers of many nations are not directly elected by the public: usually they are chosen by their party or by the head of state. But perhaps that particular list is impracticable; I am not closed to persuasion. Meanwhile, your counter-examples (Ian Smith, Chinese leadership, Malan) are irrelevant. I am not, repeat not, suggesting a "List of baddies", and therefore I do not need to find a definition that would bring in every leader whom Western liberal democracy finds suspect. The fact that such leaders would be left off some of these lists doesn't influence the point either way. However, if it is not possible to come out of this discussion with a useful title or titles for new lists, I shall not start any. Would anyone have a problem, for instance, with "List of self-proclaimed monarchs since 1848"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TinaSparkle (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC). -- oops, sorry, forgot to sign. TinaSparkle 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)