Talk:List of dictators/Archive 2

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 04/2005 and 12/2005.

Post replies to the Talk:List of dictators, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:List of dictators/Archive03. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. jucifer 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

--

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)

Contents

Added many dictators

Ok, I added many more dictators, including Jaruzelski, Honecker, Videla, Galtieri, and Torrijos. Should Indira Gandhi be included as a dictator? After all, she did bring democracy to a halt during the (in)famous [[Indian Emergency].

If this list isn't strictly monitored, it will again be shut down for POV. —Seselwa 17:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dictators I added are clearly dictators. People like Jaruzelski, Honecker, and al-Bakr are DICTATORS, and it is NOT POV to say so. I am re-inserting my edits until Sesel has a GOOD reason to keep Jaruzelski, Honecker, al-Bakr, Branco, Bordaberry, Speight, Torrijos, Xiaoping, and others from the list.

Jaruzelski, Honecker, Deng were bureaucrats. Bordaberry and Bakr were puppets. Branco did not have dictatorial power because Brazil had a crippled (though present) opposition. Speight never gained effective control of a state apparatus. Being a figurehead at the top of an authoritarian regime does not mean absolute power. —Seselwa 18:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've exhausted three reverts, so please discuss each addition you propose to make on the talk page. As I mentioned, this list will be deleted again if we allow anyone to add leaders they don't like. —Seselwa 18:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jaruzelski and Honecker fit under of dictator unless one starts to nitpick. I admit Speight and the other Fijian dictators are not true dictators, but since they gained power, even for a few days, by coups, they should be included IMHO. Al-Bakr and Branco were puppets, yes, but they were true dictators, gaining power by coups and killing opponents. Laurent Kabila was a true dictator, gaining power by deposing Mobutu and ignoring human rights. Bordaberry was a dictator and deserved to be listed, unless you also want to keep Banzer and Pinochet from the list. Videla of Argentina killed more than a thousand people and gained power by a coup, so he if he and Galtieri are not added, then Perón, Pinochet, Saddam, and Mugabe do not deserve to be either.

Alexander Lukashenko- a true dictator, opposing democracy and internationally condemned. A list of dictators is not complete without Lukashenko.

Erich Honecker- fits under the definition of dictator. Silenced opposition brutally and a true enemy of democracy.

Honecker was not a personal dictator - his inclusion seems problematic to me. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Josip Broz Tito- unless one is extremely politically correct, one should accept Tito is as much a dictator as Ceausescu.

Leaders of the USSR from Lenin to Gorbachev- even Gorbachev was a true dictator, even though he liberated Russia. Nobody would argue Lenin wasn't a dictator as much as no-one would argue Reza Pahlavi wasn't one. Leaders of the USSR were brutal, anti-democratic, and even tyrannical.

While the Soviet Union was no doubt authoritarian, I would suggest that the kind of collective leadership practiced under Lenin, and then again after Stalin's death, does not truly constitute a dictatorship. There are various forms of undemocratic leadership, and not all are dictatorships. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas II- Accepted as a dictator by many people. Killed hundreds in his serfdom-like kingdom.

He was perhaps a tyrant, but he was not a dictator, which implies a contrast to a traditional monarch. Which is what Nicholas II was. And serfdom had been abolished more than thirty years before his succession. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ramiz Alia- Seriously. If we do not include Alia, why do we include Hoxha?

Vlad III Dracula- Extremely evil tyrant of Wallachia. Impaled thousands and made Wallachians' life a living hell. So evil was Vlad that he was immortalized as Dracula.

He was Prince of Wallachia. To use the term dictator for him is highly problematic. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wilhelm II- Dictatorial kaiser who ultimately lost Germany in WWII.

He was certainly not a dictator. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wojciech Jaruzelski- Practically everyone accepts Jaruzelski as a dictator. This man attempted to silence the opposition (without success) and declared martial law. Complete anti-democratic and a necessary addition to any reference list on dictators.

Again, I think the existence of pluralism within the Polish Communist Party makes his inclusion dubious. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

André Kolingba- Typical African dictator. We cannot add people like Hastings Banda without including Kolingba.

Anwar Sadat- Not democratically elected and did not tolerate opposition. I like him anyway for signing peace with Israel, but I have to admit he was a dictator.

David Dacko- Dictator of the CAR. Gained power in a coup.

François Bozizé- Gained power in a coup. Saying he later gave democracy back to the CAR would also mean we would have to take Banzer and Pinochet off the list.

Hosni Mubarak- Not very tolerating of the opposition, been in power for almost 25 years with no democracy.

Idriss Déby- Unfair elections, no real hope of TRUE democracy.

Jomo Kenyatta- Likewise, no elections. I admit, a little POV.

Laurent-Désiré Kabila- Liberated the DR Congo from Mobutu only to create a dictatorship for himself. His own allies turned against him and his self-aggrandizing trend. No democracy. Was shot because of his little popularity among the people of the Congo.

José Eduardo dos Santos- After the election of 1992 (and before it), dos Santos has shown no true commitment to democracy. Before the election, his regime was truly dictatorial.

Not having a true commitment to democracy does not necessarily equate to being a dictator. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Kabila- Could be POV, but since his father's death there has been little democracy except for promises.

Leopold II of Belgium- Thousands, perhaps even millions, of Africans dead. Massive human rights violations.

This also seems problematic - certainly Leopold was a horrific figure. Whether he is a "dictator" seems problematic. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Artur da Costa e Silva- Dictator of Brazil. No good reason except he was not open to democracy. The military regime of Brazil killed even more people than the Pinochet regime.

Emílio Garrastazú Médici- See da Costa e Silva.

Gregorio Conrado Álvarez- The military government of Uruguay also killed thousands, much more than the people killed by Pinochet's Chile. Took power in a coup.

Humberto Branco- Again, Latin American dictator who killed thousands.

Jorge Videla- Now this man HAS to be included unless we want to eliminate Banzer and Pinochet, too. More than 300,000 people killed during the Dirty War. Massive human rights violations, and currently under house arrest.

Juan María Bordaberry- The Uruguayan government was a real human rights violator. Pity the international community pays more attention to Pinochet.

Leopoldo Galtieri- Heck, this man launched the Falklands War mainly becuase the popularity of the military government was so low. No list is complete without Galtieri. Killed many opponents, too.

Omar Torrijos- This dictator was supposed to be there from the start, but was forgotten. This is as much a dictator as Noriega was.

Abdul Karim Qassem- Could be the best-loved Iraqi leader ever, but took power in a coup and was not democratic at all.

Askar Akayev- Rigged elections, been in power for more than 12 years...

Deng Xiaoping- Controlled China in all but name since Mao's death. Remember the massacre of Tiananmen Square.

Again, the pluralism within the Communist regime in China after Mao's death make his inclusion problematic. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eduard Shevardnadze- Perhaps POV, but elections were not free nor fair.

Shevardnadze was not a dictator. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev- We included Heydar. Let's include his equally undemocratic son.

Robert Kocharian- See Eduard Shevardnadze.

Same deal - unfair elections does not make you a dictator. Otherwise every Italian prime minister of the nineteenth/early twentieth century was a dictator. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fijian dictators- See my previous comments on Speight and company.

It doesn't matter how they came to power, how many atrocities they commit or what people view them as. What matters is how much power they actually had. I especially detest your comparisons between H. K. Banda and André Kolingba and Tito and Ceauşescu.

You don't seem to understand the nature of military juntas in Latin America. They were all bureaucratic and run by the military (not the state) leadership, with very few exceptions. The Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, with few exceptions, were also bureaucratic and not centralized in the executive. Ramiz Alia, for example, took over the reins after Hoxha's death and watched as the system collapsed under its own weight.

"No good reason except he was not open to democracy" doesn't cut it.

Robert Kocharian? You are either joking or pushing an extreme POV. —Seselwa 21:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter how they came to power, how many atrocities they commit or what people view them as." Then any powerful person can be a dictator? So, the Pope is a dictator? President Bush?

We can not keep this list if we simply add every president we don't like! Please understand this. Robert Kocharian is the most egregious case of POV. Yes, he's a billionaire lunatic who is hated by the majority of his people and is totally remote from Armenia's actual problems, but he has nowhere near absolute power. —Seselwa 19:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. john k 17:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An inherent violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Sensel,

There is no way of generating this list without violating these two policies. First, there is no standard conceptualization of dictatorship. Does it refer to an absolute individual leader? Or does it refer to just about any leader of a nondemocratic regime? Because there is no universal conceptualization, whatever framework you are attempting to use is POV. Further, there is also the problem of operationalization. If you ever take any political science courses, you will learn that a researcher must develop an operationalization or a protocol for generating data. Are you going to list every leader of a nondemocratic regime throughout history? Or just the ones who consolidated absolute authority? If your strategy is the former, how are you not engaged in sweeping conceptual stretching? The vast majority of rulers throughout human history, be they prices, regents, kings, queens, presidents, commissars, etc., could be lumped into that category (what Americans consider a 'democratic state' and even a nation-state are only relatively resent historical phenomena)-- making it a category so broad that it tells us nothing of value. If it is the latter, just what is absolute authority, what are its dimensions, and what indicates it?

In short, conceptualizing just what a dictator is and operationalizing the concept in order to execute a list of cases meeting the conditions required by the concept is far more complicated than you may realize. However, this trouble is absolutely unnecessary for Wikipedia, precisely because Wikipedia users have no business practicing original research. Generating such a list-- implicitly a list of historical cases-- is realm for professional political science research and PhD research, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal, and it has no business producing research and creating data; rather, it is supposed to merely report what leading authorities in the field have found. Obviously this is not what has been done with your list, which is readily apparent just by taking a look at the bottom of the base, which includes no references related to the generation of the list.

In short, please do not restore this list and redirect the page back to where it was. Otherwise, I will have to contact active contributors to ask them to address your disregard for the no original research and NPOV policies.

Regards,

172 20:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is absolutely not a list of every ruler not adhering to the "American" model. References are contained in the individual articles. Not having this article actually creates more POV problems and issues with systemic bias. I have never found a comprehensive list of dictators that covers the entire planet, and this page is useful for those who want to go beyond Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, and others demonized in the West without having to examine the history of each country as I have over a number of years. I would also point out that you are no longer an active contributor and don't have a sterling record in the NPOV department anyway. I say let people think for themselves. —Seselwa 22:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Personally attacking me is not an excuse to restore a page that is an inherent violation of "no original research" and NPOV. BTW, my record on NPOV is just as good as anyone's, though I have my own biases as does everyone, hence the fact that I was able to write a handful of featured articles that gained the support from many users with quite different POVs. 172 18:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My arguments with Sensel aside, I think WE SHOULD KEEP THIS LIST. This can be modified not to be POV if we work together. 200.74.190.138 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this article is problematic. I agree with 172's comments here - the concept of dictator is far too vague to have any kind of NPOV list of dictators. That said, for the moment I'm just going to strip the list of particularly egregious uses. john k 16:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some particular problems with the list - every leader of a country which is not a democracy is not a "dictator." We should be particularly careful about including monarchs on the list. I've left on the former Shah, and would have left on, say, Alexander I of Yugoslavia or Carol II of Romania, because their rule is more like that of a modern-style dictator than a traditional monarchy. But Wilhelm II certainly was not a dictator. I also removed some instances where the head of an authoritarian regime where rule is basically collective (such as Lenin and the post-Stalin leaders of the Soviet Union). Another problem is a tendency to identify rulers who initially came to power through elections, but gradually became more authoritarian, as "dictators" throughout their time in power. This seems to be the case with Robert Kocharyan and Robert Mugabe, both of whom I removed. While it is certainly arguable that Zimbabwe, at least, has become a dictatorship (I know less about Armenia), Mugabe certainly was not a dictator from 1980. I removed Pilsudski because his time as head of state (1918-1922) was a time of Polish democratic government. His later rule, from 1926 to 1935, might be characterized as a dictatorship, but it's a pretty murky situation. I removed Ian Smith because, as far as I know, the government of Rhodesia held (white-only) elections and had a (white-only) sort of parliamentary government. I removed Horthy because he was not a dictator - he was regent, and through most of the 30s a sort of limited parliamentary government was still Hungary's basic form of government, although it became more authoritarian over the course of the decade. During the 20s, characterizing Horthy as a dictator is extremely dubious. At any rate, I'd like to make the basic point that a) not every head of an authoritarian government can be considered a dictator; b) it is often difficult to define whether someone is a dictator when their power seems to be based on elections of dubious validity. john k 16:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would submit also, that for dates, it's better to give the dates that the person held a particular office than to give dates of their "dictatorship." For instance, it is inarguable that Mussolini was a dictator. But it is certainly arguable whether he was a dictator from 1922 to 1925 or so. If we have "(Prime Minister of Italy, 1922-1943)" by his name, instead of "(1922-1943)", we are relieved of the inherently problematic task of defining when, precisely, he became dictator. john k 17:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just nosing around to see what has interested User:172 enough to make a brief foray here, but I'll put in my 2 cents. Lists of anything with political overtones are problematic since everyone wants to exclude people he likes and includes those he doesn't. Look at treason. Anyway, there is a neutral definition of dictator: a person who is the republican equivalent of a monarch; i.e., office for life, no means of democratic removal (term limit, planned election, legal process over which he has no control). That's it! Usually also includes the ability (like a king) to designate his successor, although some simply haven't. Example: Yassar Arafat. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Resurrection

I can agree this list is useful. However, I think that for reasons best explained by User:172, it should be redirected again to Dictator. Wizzy…☎ 21:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted this page. To quote User:SlimVirgin :-
We're not here to rewrite history ...
Wikipedia is reproduced all over the Web without editing and often without attribution, which means our mistakes spread fast, leading readers to think they're seeing confirmation of something when all they're getting are false echoes. If we want a reputation for accuracy, we have to check our facts and cite our sources. Otherwise here's what happens.

None of the above can apply to List of Dictators. Wizzy…☎ 07:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand the argument here. You (and 172) say that the list is POV and will probably remain so. The same can be said of any number of political articles; the idea of Wikipedia is that everything can be improved. As for original research: again, many articles are unsourced; this doesn't mean they will necessarily remain so. Furthermore, a decision is not immutable simply because it was made a long time ago, as 172 suggested in his edit summary. It's truly a shame to waste a resource like this one, and so far the arguments against it are simply not cogent. — Dan | Talk 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless this page is redirected to an article on a notable individual's list of dicators, it is an inherent violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. When an author is drafting such a list, a particular definition of "dictator" and a particular method of identifying the characteristics associated with the definition of "dictator" chosen is always implicit. The problem is that there is no universally agreed-upon method, nor even a definition, with which to work. So if any Wikipedia editor produces this list, he is imposing his own personal POV over contending definitions; worse yet, that imposition is based on the author's own original research.

To further respond to Rdsmith4, the point that it may be useful is not an argument for generating one on Wikipedia. Original research is the driving force of scholarship and the production of knowledge and information. But it is unencyclopedic; encyclopedias are supposed to report information, not produce it. 172 | Talk 16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many wikipedia articles that are rather indiscriminate lists, most of those listed have their own articles, so are at least notable. Now if Rdsmith were proposing his own definition of dictator and applying it, it would be original research. The article would be better if it stated how it arrived at the list. Roman historians classified many past leaders as dictators, etc. --Silverback 11:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, many articles are lists. Some can be generated while violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, but this one can't. To get any idea how difficult and ad hoc it is to make each individual classification, see the posts by John Kenney above dealing with the many political figures how fall into the gray area. As for the Roman dictators, we already have a Category:Roman dictators. BTW, it's probably safe to assume that you found your way to this article through my user contributions. Since we are going through arbitration now, it's probably best if I stay out of your disputes in which I was uninvolved and vice versa. Hence the fact that I have not been involved in your disputes on the Iraq-related articles. 172 | Talk 13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Rdsmith4 noted in his edit summary that if we are going to draft articles on the grounds of bias, we might as well not have an article on George W. Bush. The problem with the "list of dictators," unlike George W. Bush, is that the methods and standards that circumscribe the information, determining what gets included or excluded, in other words the way in which the content of this article is generated, are themselves inherent "POV" and "orginal research." Here the inclusion of any historical figure would be based on a Wikipedia's editors personal, ad hoc determination of who fits the definition and who does not. For Bush, however, the problem posed by the ideological contention among the editors with respect to NPOV can be ameliorated by holding ourselves to the same standards of accurate and verifiable reporting of information from reliable sources of professional news sources, encyclopedias, and sourcebooks, which allow us to reach the closest approximation of the ideal of "NPOV" that we can reach. 172 | Talk 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion 23 October 2005

I left a note on Rdsmith4's talk page askimg him to return here so that we can both reach an understanding on this page. The two of us, however, should avoid each other, given that arbitration is on verge of accepting my case against you. It's fair to say that we aren't likely to work well together under these circumstances. I'd appreciate it if you stay uninvolved on this page (which has been on my watchlist for over two years now), while I stay uninvolved in your disputes outside my watchlist, particularly those involving you and Csloat. 172 | Talk 03:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback wrote in his edit summary, "restore, unilateral blanking and redirect is not good faith editing, there are procedures if you want to delete an article. I have taken an interest in allegedly inherently POV articles recently." There has been a consensus for directing this article for over two years. So the burden is more on your to state your case on talk, not the person who is leaving the article as it has been left for the greater part of Wikipedia's existence. Silverback needs to explain his case on talk. 172 | Talk 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The history appears to show you doing most of the recent reverts, and that development has continued on the article, those editors deserved to have the article considered on its merits, and not unilaterally, effectively deleted. Difficult distinctions are made in academia, and there is no intellectual reason why they can't be in this matter. If there are disagreements about some distinctions, the article may have to present the arguments for and against particular entries based on particular definitions.--Silverback 07:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe 172 has done a lot of the reverting, but if he had not, I would have. I have yet to see a cogent argument from Silverback that says this list could be NPOV. I happen to watch Robert Mugabe as well. John Kenney has good arguments above as to why he is not on the list. If this list were resurrected, there would be an edit war to put him on, for precisely the reasons we are discussing here. Question for Silverback - does Robert Mugabe belong on this list ? Wizzy…☎ 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, can you provide a citation from a good source making the case?--Silverback 09:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It does not matter that I have done most of the recent reverts. The page was originally redirected per an agreement of Hephaestos, Mav, Martin, and a few other editors a couple of years ago. It is true that I objected when Sesel restored the list a few months ago, and later when Dan did a few days ago. However, it is also worth noting that no counter-arguments to my objections, or to those of John Kenney and Wizzy (who are also against this list), were offered by Sesel or Dan. They no longer appear to be watching this page. This can only lead me to conclude that they were satisfied with our reasoning on talk, and thus no longer object to the two-year-old consensus for redirecting this article to dictator. So I object to your suggestion that I unilaterally deleted Sesel and Dan's work and did not consider their work on the merits. Re: Difficult distinctions are made in academia, and there is no intellectual reason why they can't be in this matter. Right, there is indeed no intellectual reason. The reason, however, pertains to policy: WP:NOR. Wikipedia editors cannot do the work of academics and scientists on Wikipedia, and that includes making the kinds of classifications that political scientists make. 172 | Talk 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They can cite historians and political scientists on controversial listings. That would not be original research. Many wikipedia articles on figures on this list, mention that they were considered dictators. If the label survived good faith editing on those articles, there is no reason it can't be listed here. If only certain historians or opposition groups considered a figure a dictator, then of course, the mention in that figures article should be so qualified. But even that should be no barrier to the listing here.--Silverback 07:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem for this list is that there is nothing to cite. I'm not aware of any political scientist or historian who attempted to come up with a standard for defining a diverse slate of leaders over time as dictators. Instead, "dictator" is one of those terms used more or less loosely and a pejorative. So you seem to be asking Wikipedia editors to do a task that has not even been attempted by academics. 172 | Talk 07:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I suspect there will be several standards. An article does not have to be easy, although that might effect its practicality given the nature of wikipedia.--Silverback 07:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
There are no crystallized standards for such a loosely defined term. The only way to go about drafting this list would involve Wikipedia editors personally making the determination of who goes in and who does not by engaging in the same kind of reasoning as John Kenney was going through in reference to a series of leaders in an earlier discussion thread on this talk page. John Kenney is a very competent scholar; but the kind of work he does is not meant to be practiced on Wikipedia. Such original research" would be a nightmare on Wikipedia, as you would certainly attract editors who are not working in good faith but who are instead here assuming that this article is just a list of politicians whom they dislike. 172 | Talk 08:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
John K seems to be making reasoned objections to a specific few entries based on some definition that he has in mind, rather than requesting citations, perhaps he was unfamiliar with how wikipedia operates. Of course, he could remover those entries from the article until citations are provided. He probably should check the specific articles on the entries before acting just on his own reasoning however.--Silverback 08:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
No, he is not unfamiliar with how Wikipeida operates. The existence of this list presupposes Wikipedia editors engaging in their own reasoning, as John Kenney was in objecting to those specific entries. That's why there has been a consensus against this list on the grounds that there is no way of filling it in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There are simply no citations to request. The term dictator is not a standardized social science concept, leaving us no chance to apply it in an even remotely consistent manner without engaging in original research. 172 | Talk 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Since I am being discussed, I thought I would reaffirm my basic position on this issue. I do not believe that this should be an article. There is too much individual judgment involved. However, when there was, briefly, an article here, I thought that, at the least, it ought to try to maintain some reasonable standard of what a "dictator" is. I assumed it meant "non-monarchical ruler of a non-democratic state with highly centralized personal power." So I excluded monarchs, semi-democratic leaders, and leaders of authoritarian states that exercised collective leadership. If there were to be a consensus to revive this article, I still think that this would be the way to do it. But I very much agree with 172 that this article should not be revived, because it's ultimately POV and original research. john k 15:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You assert that it is ultimately POV and original research, but can you go beyond that to anything rigorous defense or explanation of that assertion? Your definition for instance, seems fairly workable, is fairly close to common usage of the term, and you applied it to specifics. The fact that some will have an emotional reaction to the term being applied to some of their favorite "leaders", is not necessarily support for the assertion.--Silverback 02:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is not that some editors will dislike the term being applied to leaders whom they support, but rather the inevitability of significant room for disagreement between editors who are not politically motivated and who have attempted to apply the definition to specifics but still disagree on a classification that falls into a gray area. These ambiguous cases make the problems associated with engaging in original research on Wikipedia most readily apparent. It is original research because the people who are determining which leaders get included and which leaders get excluded, including the iffy judgment calls, are Wikipedia editors and can only be Wikipedia editors, as I am aware of no encyclopedia or sourcebook that has produced a historically comprehensive list of dictators that has emerged as any sort of standard in professional discourse. 172 | Talk 05:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
On a lark, I only have one physical encyclopedia in the house, the Worldbook 1990 edition, so I decided to look up what it says. The "dictatorship" article not only lists several dictators, but has this statement "The Soviet Union controlled much of Eastern Europe following WWII (1939-1945), and Stalin established Communist dictatorships in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other nations in that region." The article is attributed to Alexander J. Groth. Like any subject, encyclopedists, historians, politicians, journalists, social scientists, etc. will all have gone on the record someplace labeling leaders dictators, and these are generally considered citable sources on wikipedia. Your objection appears to that the assembly of a list that purports to be "comprehensive" would violate NOR. However, I don't think this article makes the comprehensive claim, and it appears that other encyclopedias will produce cross reference lists to the articles on the specific dictators, and don't worry about the fact that their lists are not "comprehensive". Would you have similar objections to a list of imperial powers and their colonies? --Silverback 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, you are of course correct in pointing out that there are many authorities generally considered citable sources who have called certain regimes dictatorships and certain rulers dictators. But if this list were to be revived, the problem would be the inherent bias in the selection of these sources, which could be intentional or unintentional. Some of these authorities consider all non-democratic regimes dictatorships, and all non-democratic leaders dictators. Others do not regard absolute monarchies and authoritarian regimes that exercised collective leadership as dictatorships. We also run into a problem in that the sources applying a more restrictive definition of the term aren't likely to explain why they aren't calling certain regimes dictatorships. They just aren't going to be using the term; and there is no way of citing what they are not saying. In the end, given the endless assortment of all the possible sources that could be noted, what criterion would determine whose opinion happened to get cited in Wikipedia? The answer is whichever book or website a Wikipedia editor chooses to cite for one reason or another. The selection of one source over another by a Wikipedia editor would be quite arbitrary and would implicitly mean the adoption of one particular definition over another. Thus, the factor determining who goes into a list of dictators on Wikipeida and who gets left out would be the original research of Wikipeidia editors. As an aside, Wikipedia editors are drafting stuff like the list of supermodels. But I don't think that anyone's going to argue with the assertion that a more careful set of content standards should be applied in our articles on important political and historical topics than in lists related to entertainment. On your second point, this article does purport to be comprehensive, even if it is not stated so explicitly in the introduction. A "list of dictators" would be systemically biased if leaders were excluded arbitrarily; and Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid systematic bias per WP:NPOV. On your final point, yes I do see similar problems in a list of imperial powers and their colonies. It is important to distinguish colonialism and imperialism. On one hand, a list of territories constitutionally and legally defined as colonies would be fine. The U.K., for example, still uses the term crown colony to describe territories under its sovereignty but not part of the U.K. proper. Listing such entities as crown colonies would leave no more room open for interpretation than listing the fifty states in the U.S. or the counties within a U.S. state. On the other hand, imperialism is a murky category based on observed patterns of political and economic influence. For example, imperialism often refers to periods such as Britain's "informal empire" in the era of "Pax Britannica," and not just formal political control. So, while I would not oppose something like a list of British crown colonies, I would most assuredly oppose something like a list of imperialist powers on the same set of grounds. 172 | Talk 00:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to select one source over another. If it becomes too large, we might have to restrict it to the more academic sources, and perhaps eliminate there mere political pejorative sources, but that is routine in our work here. If the standards of the sources are non-uniform, by being inclusive rather than deletionist, at least we would have narrowed search a bit for the reader interested in dictators, although not as narrow as their particular focus might have desired. In the future there might be a hierarchy of such articles.--Silverback 07:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to select one source over another? I'm not following your reasoning. By that do you mean that your standard to have Wikipedia classify any leader just because some Wikipedia editor has dug up some tract, including "mere political pejorative sources?" That's not going to fly at all, given WP:NPOV. As for a future "hierarchy of such articles," I'm not sure if I am following your reasoning. It sounds like just an extra level of original research-- even worse than what we have now. By the way, if you don't mind, I think that I'll understand your reasoning better if you tell me your answer to the question that you asked me. Would you support a list of imperial powers and their colonies? 172 | Talk 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's put it this way, I wouldn't go out of my way to be deletionist on a list with properly sourced entries. I also wouldn't be a pain about requesting sources for non-controversial or non-questionable entries. Sorry I missed this question earlier.--Silverback 17:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I think all sources could be termed political pejorative sources. It is the nature of the beast. List of supermodels is not perjorative, and so does not need the same scrutiny. If this list is resurrected, I see interminable edit-warring. Once upon a time this list had Queen Elizabeth II - I would have to take it off. So, we would have to tightly define Dictator, invoking accusations of WP:NOR. I suppose interminable discussion here is preferable though.. :-( Wizzy…☎ 08:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, how profound, "all sources could be termed political pejorative sources". All people could be termed "Bourgeoisie" and then killed too. All distinctions are subjective, and a whether a human lives or dies doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. But if you think everything is subjective and nothing matters, then why do you think you have said something worth typing in? Are you just engaged in an elaborate game, trying to get any stimulation that will break the boredom?--Silverback 09:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry - I meant all sources listing dictators could be termed political pejorative sources. Wizzy…☎ 09:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Are you just engaged in an elaborate game, trying to get any stimulation that will break the boredom? Silverback, I'd advise you to apologize to Wikiwizzy for the above comment, and reply in a serious manner, instead of the strawman. Even before his clarification, nothing in what he said suggested that he believes that "whether a human lives or dies doesn't matter much in the scheme of things." 172 | Talk 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
While wizzy has narrowed the argument he is making, it is the same vapid type of argumentation that is dismissive without really communicating anything. The word can pejorative, but still informative and properly applied. Because being called a rapist is a negative classification, does not mean that rapists don't exist, or that the term is subjective. The fact that there are sometimes gray areas and difficulties determining whether some circumstances constitute rape, does not mean that the distinction is not worthwhile. Whether humans live or die does't matter in the scheme of things, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter to us. Was wizzy trying to dismiss the value of the sources, or was he just noting that the sources are communicating negative characterizations of the entries in the lists?--Silverback 11:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I was saying that a Dictator is too subjective, more so than, for example, rapists. For instance, I refuse to use the word Evil because it means different things to different people, and is thus useless for communication. We could come up with a Wikipedia Dictator, define the term, and list them all, but now we are doing Original Research. Wizzy…☎ 11:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Taking power by force, and shooting and threatening people are generally well defined. While date rape and "consent" are gray areas with subjective elements. Because there is more than one definition, and nuances of differences, does not mean that each definition cannot be understood, and applied in a uniform manor by historians or other academics. The job of wikipedia would not be to decide which one is right. We do make judgements all the time, especially in the science articles about which sources are notable.--Silverback 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Silverback, okay, so you aren't going to apologize to Wizzy. Now are going to reply to my other 10:01, 26 October 2005 post, the last post in our long discussion thread? Or are you signaling your willingness to give up on this list? 172 | Talk 12:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It is too soon to say. I'm not going to persue the page on my own. If those who have made the valuable contributions are no longer interested, I will probably let it die. However, too many decisions are made hastily based on temporary consensi of small size. If two or three people want the page to continue I will support them, although it appears your actions are effectively a deletion at lower standards than the requirements of the RfD process.--Silverback 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
That's essentially my position. Hypothetically, if a situation comes up in which there is no way to stop the production of an article that presupposes original research, then at least one can strive for a lesser evil and seek to maintain some resonable standard of a definition. If WP:NOR is to be disregarded, that's a problem in and of it self; but it's at least important to consider that some problems are less bad then others. In other words, it is a step up to replace a lower standard of original research with a higher one, as you were doing when you were removing certain entries from the list... Fortunately, the community's commitment to WP:NOR seems to be getting stronger and stronger. (In the early days of Wikipedia this policy did not seem to be nearly as well articulated.) So I don't think that it'll have to come to that on this page. 172 | Talk 18:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why was this list deleted?

What a good list this was!

I do not know why it was deleted. I became aware of this when I noticed that some users were against calling Idi Amin a dictator on his own page.

The argument for the deletion of this article were absurd. I can't believe that it was deleted.

The concept of a dictator in the modern context is clear - it is a dictionary definition.

Does the individual qualify? Yes or no. These are very rarely matters of opinion - and in the few cases when they are that can be noted. There is no reason why there should not be a list of dictators. There is a list of Family Guy characters.

The argument for the deletion of this page was entirely spurious.

jucifer 00:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked over who was on this list ? Have you read the long discussion here in full ? Does the individual qualify? Yes or no. These are very rarely matters of opinion. They are almost always a matter of opinion. Wizzy…☎ 06:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • a) I have read the discussion.
  • b) It is a simple dictionary definition and there is no reason why the usual NPOV rules need be compromised.
  • c) Everything can be a matter of opinion. For some the Khmer Rouge were "agrarian reformers". Wiki takes a NPOV discounting irrational or extreme opinions. The definition of dictator is clear, the history of these people is clear. It is therefore clear how to reach NPOV - asses the circumstances and see if they fit the bill.
  • d) If you feel there are names here that are misplaced, remove them - so long as you can justify that in terms of a dictionary definition in the talk page.
  • e) Your only justification for deleting the ENTIRE article is if you believe there are NO dictators. That surely isn't your view - or you be fighting on the "dictator" page also. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF WIKI! People add and people take away and consensus is reached.
  • f) You seem to also fear that the article will become POV even if you "prune" the names you object to? So keep it in your talk page and watch it like everyone else.
  • g) Nothing can justify blanking this page. Deleting this page is vandalism.

jucifer 06:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather than rehash the whole argument, I will pick two names, if I may ? Adolf Hitler and Robert Mugabe. (If it matters, I am no fan of either). According to John Kenney (above) they do not belong on this list. What is your (dictionary-driven) opinion ? If I were to remove either, they would soon be returned. Wizzy…☎ 07:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops, looking again, I see JK said nothing about Hitler. However, Hitler was elected to power - don't Dictators have to seize power ? Wizzy…☎ 08:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
A dictator does not need to seize power. A dictator merely needs to rule without constraint of the law - i.e. by dictat, hence the word. Hitler did indeed rule in this way. Mugabe seems to have been ruling this way for over ten years - or maybe I have been brainwashed by the BBC! jucifer 13:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The Dictator article says .. Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, ... achieved office by legal means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional restraints. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that editors of this page can mutually agree ? My problem with the List is that people will indiscriminately add people they don't like. Some of us could agree that Mugabe has 'gone over the edge' regarding gradually eroded constitutional restraints, but other editors could legitimately claim that he has done nothing of the sort. In such a case there will be endless revert-warring. When I first saw this list, QE2 was on it. The UK doesn't even have a constitution. How would we resolve such disputes ? Wizzy…☎ 13:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking over the discussion above I note only that User:172 and User:Wizzy seem to be in favour of the deletion of this article. On this basis 172 claims some kind of consensus.

They argue that the list is fundamentally original research. No it isn't. Any other similar list e.g "List of Queens" is comparable (I'm not sure there is such a list but that is not the point.) Was the Queen Mother a Queen? Was Nasser a dictator? It is the same question as relates to the issue of original research.

The issue here is the definition. Dictator is easily defined in the modern context and there is little difference between dictionaries on this issue.

It is also argued above that the article could not be kept NPOV. This is no criteria for the deletion of an article. It is (this hardly needs saying really) a reason for its maintenance and improvement. Deletion of an interesting, notable, useful, article is certainly no improvement.

If someone things a name should be added or deleted they should feel free to discuss it openly in the framework of the definition of the word. The blanking of this article by User:172 on a regular basis is vandalism by any definition.

jucifer 01:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


The history of this talk page also causes me some concern. See this edit by User:172 for example which s/he labeled Fixed long width problem here.

And this: [1] where the entire discussion was deleted.

jucifer 01:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. First, you point to an edit that I had made from more than two years ago. [2] It was way too long ago for me to remember making it; but it appears as though I reverted a not-too-relevant anonymous comment because the the comment had messed up the talk page formatting. Second, the edit by Martin that 'causes you concern' here was also an edit from more than two years ago that looks to me like just another removal of a not-too-relevant anonymous comment that messed up the page formatting. Martin, by the way, would happen to go on to serve as one of Wikipedia's first arbitrators. He was pretty well regarded as one of the site's early active members and earlier writers of policy. Finally, Wizzy and I have been the only two editors speaking out against drafting a list here based on original research, as you will be able to see if you take another look at the talk page discussions. At any rate, counting heads hardly matters here. What matters on Wikipedia talk pages is engaging in the substance of the specific points brought up in previous discussions. 172 18:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Now, getting to the crux of the argument, you claimed that adding a leader to this list is not more a violation of the no original research rule than a reference to the Queen Mother. However, there is a clear difference. With royalty there are going to be official titles; from 1952 until her death the official title of the mother of Elizabeth II was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. No leader of a state, however, went by the legal title of "dictator," expect those from whom the term derives-- the Roman leaders who held an official office called "dictator." So, classifying modern leaders as "dictators" in a list on Wikipedia would hinge on a conscious ahistorical construction of the term by the Wikipedia editors themselves, along with their own editorial judgment in applying the term to each entry; such classifications are exactly what is meant by the term "original research." Why is this a problem? Aside from the fact that such practices are against Wikipedia content policies, there is no way around the inevitability that this list results in systematic bias of the worst kind, being arbitrary and inconsistent application of the term. In other words, there are leaders who fall into a gray area who would either be excluded or included from the list depending on which of the any possible number of possible ways of thinking about the term happened to be guiding the assumptions of any random user uploading content to the list. For a concrete example, Leonid Kuchma is former head of state who quickly went from being regarded as a legitimate elected democratic leader to a leader condemned by some of his critics as a dictator.' Here, Kuchma would either be included here or excluded here not because the term "dictator" is a clear-cut objective description, as you seemed to suggest earlier, but rather because of who was editing the article, and what kind of personal perspective was informing his or her own judgment. 172 19:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

User:172, I assumed no bad faith, I merely pointed out that you deleted someone else's comment and mislabeled the edit, it a way that was misleading - I have no doubt the the matter was accidental. The other edit I mentioned is not tidying up as you put it, but was the blanking of the entire talk page.

Your argument is so obtuse as to be almost unintelligible. It is - and I say this with all due respect to you - risible.

"... classifying modern leaders as "dictators" in a list on Wikipedia would hinge on a conscious ahistorical construction of the term by the Wikipedia editors themselves." No it wouldn't! The modern meaning is in common usage and is defined in dictionaries and discussed in encyclopedias. The modern understanding of the word dictator is a conscious ahistoical construction!!!! It is a dictionary definition!!! Do you not see the ad absurdum implications of this point!?

You misunderstand my point about the Queen mother - read it again, I wasn't saying what you think I was saying.

You argue that it is original research to label anyone a dictator and so the list must be deleted. I have already addressed this point - but let me put it another way for you: If you take what you are saying to its logical end, almost nothing be done here! You could never call a man a "father" - after all who is to say for sure! This is not what is meant by the NOR policy at all. I suggest you read Jimbo here for clarification of what the policy is for. NOR is to stop minor cranky theories. You are trying to apply it to the application of clear dictionary definitions and mainstream opinion. Was Franco a dictator? Yes he was - can you find someone who disagrees with the historical consensus? Perhaps, and ironically, it is for the exclusion of such minority opinions that NOR is there, as Jimbo explains.

You think that the term is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently - so discuss it on the talk page - do not vandalise the page.

Regarding Kutchma: You again have missed the point - it does not matter what his critics called him - does he fit the definition or not, that is the only question. It is likewise not relevant whether he wasn't always a dictator, he wasn't always an adult/head of state/father and many other things that he can be called legitimately.

Do you think there are no dictators? If so you think the page should be deleted. Otherwise, you need to debate on this page about who is and who isn't like every other wikipedian. You have no right to circumvent such a debate with your systematic vandalism. Also: the use of redirect here is clearly misapplied. It is an inappropriate REDIRECT. This is merely a dirty trick back-handed way of deleting the page, depriving wiki of good info and circumventing debate.

You MUST stop vandalising this page.

jucifer 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have replaced the part of early discussion on the talk page that was deleted for an unknown reason.jucifer 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Juicifer, please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Discussions shoudl stay in order; so, archive an entire page at once or not at all . You have only been a Wikipedia editor for a week, I gather, so I recommend finding an experienced editor to help you with page archives if for now you are having troubling finding your way around the website. Also, see Wikipedia:Etiquette. Threatening other editors to 'stop vandalism' when they disagree with you is not allowed under Wikipedia's etiquette policies.

  • I have been a user for more than a year. You I gather are an administrator and should know better that is implied by your actions. You have repeatedly missapplied wiki policies and asking you to "stop vandalising" is in no way a threat. Please take care when quoting others.
    • Well, I did not see those November 2004 edits earlier. Still, considering the roughly one year gap in your editing history, I still do not understand the vehemence with which you stormed in here and started attacking me, although, as far as I know, we have never been in contact before. 172 05:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I archived the page properly according to the instructions, and it was fine.
  • If you check the history of this page you will see that it was all in the order in which I put it. That is a matter of record. At some point a user blanked the page with no summary. I merely replaced the lost info in the order that it was, the order that it would have still been in.

You posted post links to those two and a half year old edits. There is no need to post them to the current discussion page. It's much easier for everyone involved here to have the discussions appear in chronological order.

  • That is the current discussion page, its just it was blanked a while back and I replaced the lost data.

Finally, applying a simple "dictionary definition" to describe observed patterns in history is not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be. Historians and social scientists often go to school as long as physicians. With professional historians often cannot manage to agree on the same terms for stuff they are observing. I recommend going the the article on ideal type, a term coined by Max Weber (the founder of contemporary political science and sociology) in order to start to get a sense of just how difficult applying defining and applying a concept in social studies really is, if one is interested in following the kind of rigor demanded in professional research, and, by the way encyclopedias and source-books. Regarding your comparison with the term "father," don't expect me to reply. Such straw man only serve to create disruption. 172 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah my dear User:172, what a joy it is debating such a master logician! We are not talking about observed patterns in history we are talking about people and whether they fit the definition of a dictator. Again, the definition of a dictator (modern) is not controversial - it is someone who rules without the rule of law i.e. by diktat - or words to that effect in various dictionaries. Ideal types as you are no doubt aware are abstractions and I assume you are not arguing for wiki to tow Webber's line in preference to the OED et al. Straw man eh? No dear! It is a reductio ad absurdum! A straw man is where you mischarechterise a position and then debate that weakened position in order to make it look daft. Here, I have extended your logic to show that when it is applied it leads to absurd results thus demonstrating the absurdity of your contention. I don't think you meant to describe using weak argument as "disruption" but it would fit in with your general pattern of misunderstanding wikipedia policies.

jucifer 01:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently I formulated my comments incorrectly in haste. (Unlike some people, I don't enjoy these spats on talk pages.) I meant to call your characterization of my Kuchma example the straw man. I would not have formulated my description of a hypothetical argument in favor of listing Kuchma (a position with which I personally disagree, btw) as you stated. At any rate, as you stated above, you were trying to make a reductio ad absurdum with the father example. But the example didn't fly. 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, John Kenney assessed a handful of examples of entries appearing in the list, describing the specific ways in which each was ambiguous, and giving a clear sense of why this list happens to so problematic. I suggest that you read through his posts, as they already appear on this page and do not need to be restated. 172 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK fine. A new point from you, so I will update the above summary below:

I have answered all these points above in various places. This is going round in circles. Essentially you contend that the article must be deleted because:

  • a) wikipedia cannot define "dictator".
  • b) even if it could, the topic would be lead to conflict.
  • c) calling someone a dictator constitutes "original research".
  • d) there are no sources for the list, since no-one has made such a list before.
    I think 172 is saying that even for people who make lists, dictator is so poorly defined that it is at best a loose perjorative. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I contest these points arguing that:

  • 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
    I was going to bring up Mswati III - someone who rules by dictat but maybe does not belong on this list. A disenfranchised Swazi would wonder why you missed him though. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • b) we must work for consensus on wiki - wiki does not shirk from controversial subjects
    The conflict must be resolveable somehow - particularly difficult on this page. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • c) this is a misunderstanding of WP:NOR
    This follows from your answer to a). If a) does not hold, neither does this. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • d) it is absurd to suggest that a list on wikipedia must be sourced elsewhere. What does need sourcing are the elements of a list. Your suggestion is tantamount to saying that the Pope could not be on a list of Catholics unless we could a find a list somewhere else which so included him. You have confused the elements of the list with the list itself - a list is a collation of elements with some common denominator.
    I think much of this comes down to a). We can agree what a catholic is. You think it is simple to define a dictator - I cannot agree. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This seems simple to me. I find your arguments utterly flawed, and you may feel the same way about mine. I am not going to respond to any more of your arguements until we are on the way to making progress resolving this issue.

Fine. Let's move on. There is no point going round in circles, please address the practical questions I set out under the new header below.jucifer 05:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not shirk from controversial subjects and indeed works toward consensus; however, this work toward consensus must always follow Wikipedia:Cite your sources. If content on Wikipedia cannot or does not cite sources, it must to be removed on grounds of the no original research rule. If content on Wikipedia cannot or does not cite sources, it must to be removed on grounds of the no original research rule. On that note, it is impossible for this article to be based on reporting and citing professional research; as I told another editor on this page earlier, other encyclopedias and sourcebooks don't have comparable comprehensive, standardized lists for us to cite. Further, I am not aware of lists of dictators getting generated in social science literature. Lots of lists of any number of regime and leadership attributes get generated in social science research, especially more cross-sectional and statistics-oriented work. The term "dictator" never goes along with the same rigor. It is just about always going to be used as a loose pejorative. 172 05:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been modifying my comments. [3] I replied under the above comment earlier; and that is where my comment belongs. Hence I am moving it back down here in this edit. Notice how Silverback and I were having the dicussion earlier. He would comment. I would reply below him. Then he would comment below me. The conversation was easy to follow as a reader works his or her way down the page. It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion regarding the status of the page with these headings and paragraphs moving all over the place. 172 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Above you stated that I am confused in my insistence on Wikipedia:Cite your sources. The comparison with the list of popes is silly. Citing your sources is a must when historians disagree. For example, when certain historians consider a particular leader an absolute ruler while others consider him a figurehead, and I find him classified on Wikipeida as a "dictator," I will want to know who is making the classification. If the classification is based on a comparable list pulled from a reference book or peer reviewed academic publication per Wikipedia:Cite your sources, the classification will have to be duly noted. If the classification is made by a Wikipedia editor, it is original research, which is not going to make sense. Wikipedia editors are not qualified to arbitrate debates on which professional historians cannot agree. 172 15:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you willing to compromise User:172?

It seems that discussing this is not going to lead to any great light being shed.

Would you, User:172 be amenable to some kind of compromise to allow the list in some form?

If you will not accept this article in any form, lets put the list up for deletion. Redirecting "List of dictators" to "Dictators" is clearly not the right usage of a redirect. It will then be kept or deleted and every one will be happy.

jucifer 02:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are asking me to keep track of an AfD vote, and yet more time on this page each day when I would much rather do other things. I probably would be in a more accommodating mood at the moment if you hadn't stormed in here accusing me of vandalism, mocking my arguments, claiming that I am ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and implying that I had been tampering with information on the discussion page, despite the fact that your hardly a week old account would suggest that we hadn't even interacted with each other before. Why shouldn't I expect the same incivility on the AfD page? 172 05:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite bizarre. Tell me User:172, if my account is only a week old how would you explain this?

I have no interest in accusing you of anything, but you have yet to explain your deletion of someone comment on this page last month - nor have you replaced it. Furthermore, when I carefully replaced a very large number of contributions that had been on this page but had been deleted apparently by mistake - you deleted all those contributions also.

Now, I am not asking for an apology, let us put all this behind us and move on. Let's start from scratch, I'll re-post the question, and we will restrain our discussions to how to resolve this dispute amicably and in good faith.jucifer 05:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I never asked you to do anything. I think it would be best if we could avoid an AfD through compromise. Alternatively I could nominate the article for AfD.

(1) Look, as I said earlier, I did not notice your edits back in November 2004. Nevertheless, since there is almost a year-long gap in your contributions history between last year and earlier this month, you struck me as a new user earlier. (2) I was correct in reverting your archiving of the talk page, which restored a couple of irrelevant anon comments from two and a half years ago while sweeping the comments showing that Maveric149 and Martin were the ones behind the redirtection of the page, not me. (3) BTW, please stop breaking up other editors' comments. Repond to other editors below their comments. It's hard for me to follow you because you keep going from one heading to the next, and within each all over the place within my comments. 172 06:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you willing to compromise User:172?

It seems that discussing this is not going to lead to any great light being shed.

Would you, User:172 be amenable to some kind of compromise to allow the list in some form?

If you will not accept this article in any form, lets put the list up for deletion. Redirecting "List of dictators" to "Dictators" is clearly not the right usage of a redirect. It will then be kept or deleted and every one will be happy.

jucifer 02:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As I implied earlier, I would be more amenable to the proposal if I can be assured that the AfD debate will be more civil and orderly than the brief impression I got here. On AfD, are you going to civil, or treat the page as on online debate forum and aggressively campaign for support? From my point of view an editor I never even saw around until today stormed on to this page, charging me with vandalism, conspiracy to suppress comments on the talk page, mocking me, baiting me, and the like out of nowhere. In the meantime, we can wait for the input of the editors whose talk pages you were spamming. A handful of the editors you invited are among my favorite editors; so I'll be quite eager to hear their take. 172 06:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

User 172. Again you comment for some reason that I have made no edit for about a year. This again is simply inaccurate. Do you not know how to use the "user contributions" list? You will see that I have made about 600 edits and have contributed every month except March and April when I had exams. Let us refrain from any more wasteful ad hominem discussion and resolve this dispute posthaste.

Now, can we come to some agreement as to the content of the page, or put it up for AfD?

Okay, so I misread your user contributions history. You weren't a new editor. Calling someone a new editor, though, is not an ad hominem. BTW, enough with the catty remarks like Do you not know how to use the "user contributions" list? Wikipedia is not an online debating forum or a soapbox. 172 14:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I ask you again, please can adress the issues at hand I'm not interseted in this bitchiness. I have divided this article in two, as ancient and modern day dictators are two different things and have their own articles, they should also have their own lists.jucifer 15:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We are having a discussion, not debating in front of an audience. Aggressive comments about my "bitchiness" do not help in any way. Before I got used to the format on Wikipedia for discussion over the past few years, I used to make comments that were too blunt, which left people upset while not convincing anyone. So, I say this as a helpful word of advice... Regarding your AfD proposal, my attitude is wait and see. You spammed a bunch of editors, asking them to come out here and check out my three years of vandalism. Perhaps some of them will show up. We can get additional feedback. If matters had to come to taking this page to AfD, I would be much more willing to post it up on AfD myself if you would get a proxy to represent your stance on the AfD page. Perhaps I am wrong, but my sense from what I saw yesterday is that you seem to be gearing up for a fight in front of an audience, which would be way too time consuming to have any appeal to me. Regarding your ancient and modern lists, the ancient one is fine, but I wish you would have held off on the modern one. I don't see why the same argument has to get played out on two different pages, as opposed to reaching a resolution here. 172 15:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's please end this personal unpleasantlness. I stared the new article b/c it is more rational and elegant to seperate them, and removed some ambiguity about the definitions. If you think there are names on the list which are not justified, we can discuss the matter there, and delete them in a consentual fashion. I am happy to keep this article as a redirect, so we don't need to discuss this article anymore.jucifer 02:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that classifying dictatorships, for reasons stated over and over again here, is inherently original research and against Wikipedia content policy, regardless of whether it is placed here or in your "elegant" spin-off article. 172 07:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Repeated restating and asserting your point is not discussion it is dogmatism. I found flaw with you four justifications for blanking this page repeatedly. While you have not responded in any way to three of the rejoinders, you continue to assert you WP:NOR arguement, making no reference to my critique and putting up no defence. Needless to say, stating something over and over again does not make it come true - it makes it a mantra.jucifer 04:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)