Talk:List of dictators/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 05/2003 and 05/2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:List of dictators/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. jucifer 23:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


Um...NO!

First, I question this page at all -- as much as I agree with most of the insertions, I have to say that that is because I tend to be somewhat liberal in my politics. I would certainly include Pinochet as a dictator (and someone who should be tried for disappearing thousands of people, not to mention probably assassinating Allende), but I had a Chilean student who saw Allende as the dictator and Pinochet as a hero who helped save the country. That is, picking dictators is often going to be a POV thing.

Apart from that, The "Ancient dictators" thing has been removed because it was crap.

  • Ivan the Terrible -- Tsar, perhaps very unpleasant ruler, doubtless absolute monarch -- certainly not ancient, but rather medieval. Oh -- and there is nothing to justify calling him a dictator in either the modern or ancient sense of the word.
  • Julius Caesar -- yep, he was a dictator, all right. It was an official position in Rome. He held the position legitimately (as did Q.Fabius Maximus, L. Cornelius Sulla, and many others. Yes, Caesar held the office much longer than the norm, but his dictatorship was legal and legally renewed. His breaking of tradition, although legitimate, is most of why he was assassinated.
  • Nero -- Emperor, not Dictator (you don't need dictators once the Empire was formed). Came to power legitimately through inheritance. Has a bad reputation, especially because of Christians and the fire, but may not have been a bad ruler in other areas.
One of the few NPOV standards we can have is that the individual in question not be a monarch. A monarch can be every bit as oppressive than a dictator, but he is not a dictator. --Daniel C. Boyer

No more silly pages, please. J Hofmann Kemp

Is there such a thing as a non-notorious dictator? -- Zoe

Text from "Talk:List of notorious Dictators"

There's no way this can be NPOV--"notorious" guarantees that. Can we define "dictators" in a way that would make "list of dictators" useful here? Vicki Rosenzweig

Well, no. If you look at dictator, you'll see that the original meaning of the word has is a totalitarian ruler, but the meaning has a "connotation of brutality". Therefore, List of dictators would automatically imply this on all people on the list. Maybe it's better to include a short list of dictators in the dictator article. Jeronimo
Jeronimo -- in English, even the word totalitarian is loaded. I would never use that particular word to describe the original "dictator" (even thoush Sulla had a particularly ugly and bloody time in office), because it was simply not what people at the time would have understood. A dictator to the Romans was someone who was granted extraordinary powers to fix extraordinary problems. When they were done -- or when their terms expired, they packed up and went home. J Hofmann Kemp

Is Assad really the "dictator" of Syria? The goverment page says he was "confirmed" in an election. What definition or standard are we using here? --Ed Poor

I don't like the word "notorious" in the article title. I vote to move the page to List of dictators. I also think there should be a list of hereditary monarchs and a list of elected leaders (elected in the sense of coming into power via election, as opposed to took power via a coup).

All this begs the question -- (or begs us to ask the question?) -- of what is the "legitimate" way of coming into power. I am torn between support the concept of benevolent monarchy, since I love Jesus ("and he shall reign for ever" Isaiah 9:6); and democracy, since I'm an American. Should the Wikipedia take sides, or what?

I am Slovene and I love democracy either. And it is hard to live it up in these present and past times. My nation had a very strong democracy already in 8th to 10th century. But because of the situations in Europe it was treated in a non-democratic ways through its history. We all must not forget all kinds of un-human behaviour of parts of the mankind through all ages. I disagree these persons should be on the above list:

  • Fidel Castro
  • Ho Chi Minh
  • Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev
  • Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and Castro were simply freedom fighters in those hard revolutionary times, when, for instance, there was no Free World in almost whole Europe. The regimes in Europe from the beginnings of 20th century to the end of 2nd World War were pretty much dictator-minded. The postwar Cold War is a different question. Khrushchev is on the list and I can't figure it out why. Just because of the crisis in the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and such. Many sources say too that Josip Broz Tito or Haile Selassie were also dictators. Both Khrushchev and Tito fought against Adolf Hitler's Nazis and they won. It is very easy for someone to show how one person can be a dictator. In this way we may say that King Richard I of England the Lionheart, Winston Churchill or JFK are all dictators. But, hey, how can Khrushchev lies near such persons as Hitler, Mussolini were. Shurely he had many good properties not just for his nation but perhaps for the whole world. I guess otherwise Bob Hoskins won't play him in the movie. Think about. I alone won't alter any such futher lists in no way. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 13:27 Sep 18, 2002 (UTC)

From subject page:

Warning: This list has not been created according to the normal Neutral Point Of View rules which apply to Wikipedia articles. Note that the definition of "dictator" is open to interpretation. Since this page does not make it clear under what interpretation any of these people are dictators, this page does not conform to NPOV. The page title might as well be Heads of State that I disapprove of without some justificationg behind the inclusion of its contents. This page is so partisan that it should be deleted until it can be reworked properly, perhaps as part of a full Heads of State list.

There's a perhaps simple, but probably ultimately unsatisfying way to handle the NPOV issue here: make a list of people that everyone but leftists thinks are dictators, and put those people on that list.

This page should begin with a (neutral?!) definition of "dictator" and we should make very sure that each person listed on the page fits the definition. --Larry Sanger

This is still barely NPOV. Ericd 03:51 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I think George W. Bush should be included. If the question is approached dispassionately, he fulfills all the requirements. He was appointed by a court via a ruling that contravened all known principles of constitutional law (for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in Bush v. Gore as the particular question at issue was a state question and as such had the Florida Supreme Court as its court of final jurisdiction). He is currently asserting and practicing the right to conduct disappearances (done through abuse of "material witness"). He has asserted and is practicing the right to deprive anyone he feels like of liberty indefinitely on his say-so alone (or that of his ministers), not permitting them access to a lawyer or to the courts to determine the validity of their detention. (He asserts this power, and asserted the power to institute secret military tribunals, totally violating the Constitution, which states that it is only Congress which has the right to define and punish piracies and offences against the law of nations. He has totally violated the Constitution in, in essence, suspending habeas corpus when no invasion or rebellion has occurred, and he has not even stated he is so doing, though he has done so in practice.) He has threatened, through spokesmen, people to "watch what they say." He is conducting extensive surveillance of innocent people and their library records, and threatening anyone who makes public information about these searches. Do I need to go on?

I anticipate that what I write may be met with howls of outrage, but I ask if these are not the same howls of outrage with which a list of the dictatorial acts of Saddam Hussein, followed by the assertion he is a dictator, would be met with in Iraq.

I question, first, if this article should exist at all in Wikipedia, and secondly, if it is because Bush claims to be "President of the United States" that he is excluded from this list. If it is not this claim which finds him not on this list, why is Bush not on this list? Could anyone explain this to me? --Daniel C. Boyer

In support of including "George W. Bush": [1] (Disclaimer: I do not agree with all of these as legitimate grounds for impeachment and conviction [and impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for a make-believe "president," but the link here should be viewed in the context of my claim Bush is a dictator].) --Daniel C. Boyer

Give me a break - I don't like Dubya either but he is not a dictator. Are you for real? He was elected per the guidelines set out in a constitution and does not in any way have unchecked power. And the Supreme Court interpreted constitutional law when it intervened - that is what its purpose. Also in times of war many rights are temporarily suspended - and the Supreme Court bends in that direction. If we include Bush then we also need to include FDR, Wilson and Lincoln. Total rubbish. --mav
Give me a break! The Supreme Court decision was reached in contravention of all known principles of U.S. consitutional law. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question! Do you get it? The Florida Supreme Court was the court of final jurisdiction on the matter.
I am going to go through some of these points again. Breaking the Constitution, which says that it is only Congress that has the power to interpret and punish piracies and other crimes against international law, Bush, on his own say-so alone, signed an order to institute secret military tribunals to punish crimes at international law (notice: the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to do this). He has said that the outcome of these secret military tribunals -- which could include execution -- will be finally determined by himself alone. He has maintained the right to detain any American citizen he wants by calling him an "enemy combatant," with the alleged "enemy combatant" having no right to counsel or court review. If asserting the right to indefinitely detain anyone you want and even execute them via an extralegal procedure (your own say-so alone) is not a dictatorship, what is?) (Compare this with the case, reviewed all the way to your beloved Supreme Court, on which the Bush dictatorship relies as precedent for these powers -- it was reviewed by the Supreme Court. Are you for real? Notice that Bush has not suspended habeas corpus (compare with Lincoln's highly debatable actions), so that he has not even himself claimed he has the right to act in this way. Notice that the conditions for the suspension of habeas corpus (invasion or rebellion) have not been met.
The claims about in times of war rights being temporarily suspended (especially as applied to a war that will be ever expanded and there are no signs it will ever end) is an infinitely hackneyed excuse of dictators. This doesn't prove anything.
Bush rules with unchecked power. You deny this. Are you for real? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:31 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to further point out that this is not just some idiosyncratic position of mine but that the phrase "Bush dictatorship" gets 1,350 hits on Google and that U.S. Representative Bart Stupak called Bush a dictator. I am not saying we have to identify Bush as a dictator on Wikipedia; I think it would be a better idea to eliminate this article, as it is so subjective and contentious in nature. However, if we are not to eliminate this article we are going to have to work out some NPOV standards for listing as a dictator, and they cannot include saying that a person is not a dictator merely because he calls himself "President of the United States." --Daniel C. Boyer

I agree that this article (as are many of these lists) really aren't very useful at all. But some people do find them to be useful. However, calling Bush a dictator is pure Anti-Americanism propaganda that strains the definition of dictator. The Supreme Court very often bends civil liberties in times of war and grant the President certain war time powers (more often they turn a blind eye to some war time legislation that expands presidential powers but after the war they tend to weaken or eliminate those powers).
This is a certain irony in your argument. The Bush administration has aggressively attempted to prevent any challenge to certain of its dictatorial practices by stopping "enemy combatants" and those detained as "material witnesses" (we now know certainly in violation of the law as they were never intended to be questioned about September 11 or any related issue) from getting access go counsel, or getting their status reviewed by a court. Even were they to do so, their Sixth Amendment right to counsel would be a mere joke, as the government is now authorised to spy on their privileged attorney-client communications. This comes very close to the practices of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany or Fujimori-era Peru. Is it because this is happening in the United States that you do not call this a dictatorial exercise of power? Let me ask you a hypothetical question: What would someone who calls himself, is, or is generally recognised as, the President of the United States, have to do to have you concede he was a dictator? Do you intend to answer any of my specific claims? --Daniel C. Boyer
And it is the Supreme Court who decides what is and what is not constitutional -- not you or some crackpot websites. --mav
What about the many references to Bush as dictator off the World Wide Web, including that by Rep. Bart Stupak? --Daniel C. Boyer
The debate has flushed out your basic bias, which has no place in Wikipedia. Calling what I said Anti-Americanism propaganda does not prove or even support that what I have argued is incorrect. What makes, or would make, "Americanism" right without argument? This is not NPOV. It is highly debatable whether the supposed, putative or actual principles on which the United States of America was founded, or which the policies of its government or current regime now support or express, are correct. This is as controversial and debatable a political-philosophical question as any other. Moreover, calling the website "crackpot" begs the question, which is, can you refute its specific claims. In any case, I clearly indicated I did not agree with everything it said.
You have failed to address any specific point I raised, taking refuge in a world which, though commonly used as a kind of atom bomb to end discussion, lacks any validity. Why not "prove" your point by accusing your opponent of anti-Canadianism, or anti-Iraqiism? I am using the same definition of a dictator as has been used for the majority of the other people on this list.
I still think the best way to resolve this would be to delete this article. --Daniel C. Boyer

Removed Hosni Mubarak the political system in Egypt altought not democratic doesn't semms to me a pure dictatorship see Politics of Egypt

I removed Nikita Khrushchev he had obviously less power than his predecessors and his succesors. He engaged reforms to end the Stalinism. Ericd 20:11 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)~~

In America, there is a freely made transfer of power at the end of each presidency, where the outgoing administration peacefully hands over power to the newly elected president. That is the major factor distinguishing American democracy from most other countries' goverments.

The 2000 election was very close, but any description of Bush's victory as a "coup" can only be metaphoric. Gore conceded the election. That's what decided the issue: Gore's concession, not a Supreme Court decision. --Uncle Ed 20:18 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

When Gore had no other practical options. And in any case, this concession should be seen as a sort of resignation, that would have left Lieberman as President. --Daniel C. Boyer
I grant that most people use the word "dictator" to mean someone they do not approve of. But a dictator can be (and in fact originally was, and even in the last two centuries have often meen) democratically elected. We need to distinguish between a "dictator" as a particular political role that can exist within a variety of political systems (e.g. republic, democracy), versus "totalitarian" political systems. My sense from the above discussion is that people think a dictator is simply the person who governs in a totalitarian (or minimally undemocratic) state. But that is not what a dictator is. A dictator is often popularly elected or appointed with massive support, and enjoys legitimacy -- but has extraordinary powers. Slrubenstein

I hat bush alot! i would clas shim as dicator, bt tehse are my opinons and i am jsut syaing them as every time i hear the nae BUSH! i want to scream. statisticly...approximatly 75% of the american population did nto vote for bush.

Altough i could then go on to the Labout party in the UK, they have such a majority any law Tony wants can get through quite easily. -fonzy

Tony wanted the House of Lords to be entirely appointed, but failed to pass a law for this, because the House of Commons was split. Further, whereas dictators are often able to grant themselves lifetime dictatorship, the unwritten constitution and constitutional monarchy would prevent Tony from doing that. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin

It was only rejected as it was a free vote, all though this could continue on about political consiparacy, etc. -fonzy

Get rid of this list! No two persons will get the same list of dictators. Sure, some of the names are obvious like Hitler and Mussolini. But even when you get to personalities like Stalin, Pol Pot and Pinochet you will get lots of disagreements. Currently the list looks like it is compiled with American/Western-world glasses on. Was Hitler really a dictator? He came to power in a democracy elected by the people? Bush didnt win the election but came to power anyway is he a dictator? De Gaulle by using unfair constituencies... And Ben-Gurion? And so on, and on... --BL

Yes. This is the best solution, unless we are going to limit the list to official dictators such as Julius Caesar. --Daniel C. Boyer* keep the list

We scrapped the list and redirected this entry to dictator

If anyone's listening, I propose this list be resurrected, since I was just looking for such a thing this morning. If there's still worry about who can be called a dictator, there can be a section for those whose status as a dictator is disputed. — Dan | Talk 01:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Salazar, Dollfuss, Franco, Noriega, Pinochet, Amin, Castro, Franco, Sadat, Tito, Torrijos are already listed in the article. It is less POV to have a short list than to only mention those who are well-known in the West.
We need representation from all regions and all ideologies. I submit (the worst of the worst in bold, passing judgement on Hitler, Stalin and Mao):

(There was a big list here, but I pasted into the article itself. — Dan | Talk)

—Seselwa 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This list looks good, though I don't know of any exhaustive source against which it should be checked. I suggest removing the bold, since, in the interest of NPOV, we should probably not judge the 'worst of the worst', even if there is no dispute on the subject. I'd also like to include ancient dictators (Julius Caesar, Sulla, Cincinnatus, etc.), being careful to differentiate between dictators and other types of absolute rulers. Perhaps the list could be sectioned chronologically, alphabetically, or by region to break it up a bit. — Dan | Talk 02:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(I didn't intend the bolding to be in the article.) I know absolutely nothing about ancient dictators, so you should include them. --Seselwa 03:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)