Talk:List of dictators/Archive 3

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.

Contents

Revert on 07:43, 25 November 2005

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

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

Jucifer's spin-off page

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

POV for DELETION

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

Please annotate!

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

Please stop inserting blatantly inaccurate POV material on this list. Thank you. Stirling Newberry 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Please improve my annotations then. These are quick first tries to illustrate the idea; I'm more than happy to have improvements. But a list that provides no context for including (or excluding) a particular political leader is utterly worthless. FWIW, I personally think it's really silly to call Khomeini or Castro dictators; but at the same time, I know the description is often used, so we can explain the usage (and the flaws of the usage, in a NPOV way). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Dictator Country Years in power Notes
Kim Jong-il North Korea 1994-present General Secretary of the Korean Workers' Party; Chairman of the National Defense Commission ("highest administrative authority")
Richard Rabinowitz Rabinowitzland 1979-present Rabinowitzland is entirely in his mind, so of course never elected!

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

I like Jiang's table quite a bit. The reason why only a few names are annotated is because I've only got around to annotating a few. But it's a goal to annotate all of them. Still, if every annotation is "deleted on sight", there's no way it can get completed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I added to Jiang's list :) — Rickyrab | Talk 05:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion

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

I think those names should be added back, with appropriate annotation to indicate the fact of coming to power (initially) by legal means. E.g. "Came to power by election in NNNN, suspended consitution in NNNN. More annotation on context". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'v been removing gross factual inaccuracies - editors are responsible for providing NPOV and citable material. Come up with a verifiable, non-original research NPOV date and I won't object. But I am not going to do someone elses work for them. Until it can be gotten right, it will be removed as per policy. It id patently ridiculous to have factual inaccuracies in an article. There are still more to be removed, several people on the list weren't dictators, in that they did not have dictatorial power - even if they were not democratically elected, or elected by means which were not free and fair. This isn't a list of "leaders who were not elected through free and fair means". Stirling Newberry 14:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
We need some kind of criteria for inclusion in this article. An easy one would be that the person is described as a dictator in their biography. That keeps editors oif this article from having to decide. Other suggestions? -Willmcw 21:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Skewing AfD vote

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

AFD debate link

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

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

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

I have not tried to count the exact votes, which looked modestly tough with all the interspersed comments. But neither 60% nor 67% would be a consensus for deletion. Consensus is 75-80% (roughly) delete votes. There was nothing close to that shown, and no skew in that direction with the more recent votes. And it certainly wasn't a case where only newbies or sockpuppets voted to keep, experienced editors opined in both directions.
I'd request, 172, that you give up the deletion effort for a while, and work on providing helpful annotations in the new table format. A sentence or two can provide a lot of context for why someone is sometimes called a dictator, by whom, and so on. Me and several other editors have done this. Why not give us a couple months to try to shape this into an article that even you would think is worth keeping. If you don't think it's succeeded then, renominate it. (WP:FAITH and all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There has been a recurring demand (Categories, and Lists) for such an article. I am a deletionist, but the pattern I cannot deny. I think Lulu's annotations are a useful adjunct, and maybe will make more plain (down the road) for the list's deletion or keeping. I also agree with Jucifer that this should take centre stage as List of Dictators, because it was an implicit vote for that article as well. Wizzy…☎ 17:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at my request toward the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. You'd be able to make a better case for reopening the article than I, as you are an interested editor you did not get the chance to post your feedback on the AfD, not being aware of the vote until minutes after it had been closed. 172 14:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Gross POV

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

And that's only among the many inherent problems on the list. Therefore, at the moment I am making the case to extend the AfD discussion beyond the minimum five day period in order to reign in this POV mess. 172 14:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed (about the POV mess too), SqueakBox 14:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Gross Factual Inaccuracies

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

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

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

I think the table was begun with Africa. If their articles do not describe them as dictator, remove them from the list. Wizzy…☎ 14:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I would be slightly more liberal here. If their articles describe them as dictators, quote briefly from those articles, giving dates and brief characterizations of events (sentence or two). However, if (non-fringe) outside sources call the figure a dictator, even if their WP article does not reflect this; a link to that external source provides sufficient documentation (but again, with a sentence or two explaining context).
As to Africa: the editing story is quite banal. It is a bit of editing work to convert the names to a table. I did that for Africa because it was alphabetically first. Then I added a few annotations within the table. There was absolutely no claim or judgement involved about dictators having any special relationship with Africa. Please convert the other continents to table format, and start annotating those as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's make this article perfect

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

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

jucifer 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern day

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

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

That's my POV, so I cannot argue with you. But I can hear the metaphoric heckling from the peanut gallery among the medievalists, Islamic studies specialists, and East Asia specialists who disagree with our POV. The term "modern" is way too contested to work as a title for this article. 172 19:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
When I moved the content for clarity, I called it this since it is the way I speak more that anything else - it was really a fairly arbitrary way of separating out the Romans. What about "List of dictators (modern usage)" (or something like that) to clarify that the modern is really going on the current understanding, not of the definition of "modern" - which is (though uncontroversial) debatable.
Hmmm, was Napoleon the first dictator?

jucifer 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of modern is uncontroversial? I suggest that you do a bit more reading on all the different subjects that debate the term. 172 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
What I mean by uncontroversial - it is not a POV issue, I should have made that clearer. It is though a "accuracy of language" issue and should be settled. What do you suggest would be the best title?
  • Though we disagree on this matter 172, I do genuinely respect your work on wiki - you are a fine and passionate editor - and I hope we can put any bad blood behind us. Yours, jucifer 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I have to admit to being surprised by what strikes me as a 180 degree turnaround, but that hardly matters. I'm in no postion to throw stones, having been on the rude side a bit too often back in the early days of Wikipedia, before Wikipedia's civility policies were well institutionalized. 172 20:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I prefer the 1848 date to 1800. That gives us Napoleon III of France but not Napoleon I of France, which makes some sense to me. The characteristic of "modern day" dictators is that they are defined against a renewed normativity of democracy (or at least republican) forms of government. 1848 is a pivotal year, as I say above. However, 1800 as just after the French revolution and American constitutiuon isn't too bad. But either way, I think we should definitely exclude earlier (post-Roman) figures who may well have been "despotic", but didn't live in a world where the category of "dictator" (in the non-Roman sense) had a referent. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I would prefer 1789. Napoleon's rule as first consul is the first clear instance of a modern type dictatorship, I think. A situation which allows for Napoleon III, but not Napoleon I, seems odd to me. john k 19:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Date Format?

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

  • I think the (1923-) is the usual way (e.g. in a biography.) No? jucifer 20:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm the first one to add the "current". That was pre-table, and it was mostly aesthetic. Please feel free to use the "19nn-" open interval if you like (and change the existing ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
the Manual of Style suggests that we do not use "19xx-" in biographies in favor of "born 19xx". I think it should be "19xx-present". The dash itself is not explicit enough and is not in line with wikipedia policy. --Jiang 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Repeat: Please do not use 19XX- date format. Birth/death/era dates in wikipedia are not given using a death/end dash per the manual of style. --Jiang 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)